Jesus Christ and the Religions: An Essay in Theology of Religions

JESUS CHRIST AND THE RELIGIONS



Hans Waldenfels, SJ

JESUS CHRIST AND THE RELIGIONS

An Essay in Theology of Religions

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Waldenfels, Hans. [Christus und die Religionen. English] Jesus Christ and the religions : an essay in theology of religions / Hans Waldenfels. p. cm. — (Marquette studies in theology ; no. 62) Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index. ISBN-13: 978-0-87462-739-8 (pbk. : alk. paper) ISBN-10: 0-87462-739-7 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Theology of religions (Christian theology) 2. Jesus Christ— Person and offices. I. Title. BT83.85.W36 2009 261.2—dc22 2008053926

A Wade Chair Paper © 2009 Marquette University Press Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201-3141 All rights reserved. www.marquette.edu/mupress/

founded 1916

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences— Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1992.



Table of Contents

Acknowledgments 7 To the Reader 9 Chapter 1. Instead of Christianity: Jesus the Christ 15 “Dominus Iesus” 15 Not Christianity: Jesus the Christ 16 Religious Origin: Founders 18 Christ Classified 19 “No Handle on the Cross” (Kosuke Koyama) 21 On the Way to Following Christ 24 Chapter 2. Religion – Religions – Religiosity 27 Religion as Rebinding 27 Religion in European Understanding 28 Religions – Concrete 30 Religiosity – Spirituality 33 God-Relation and/or Human Work? 37 Chapter 3. 1550 Years after Chalcedon 45 “Chalcedon – End or Beginning?” (Karl Rahner) 45 “Negative Christology” 46 Separation instead of Distinction? 48 Jesus Christ, the Universal Mediator of Salvation 53 After 1550 Years 55 “A Third Magisterium” (Aloysius Pieris) 57 “Lex orandi – lex credendi” 60 Distinctions 62 Chapter 4. World History 65 Stories in History 65 Stories of Suffering 66 Stories of Search 69

6

Jesus Christ & the Religions

Stories of Promises 72 Stories of Salvation 75 Stories of God 79 Chapter 5. Dialogue and Profession 85 The Miracle of Language 85 “Trans-lation” 86 Dialogue 87 Profession 90 Conversion 91 Competition of Religions 93 Faith in Christ and the Dialogue between Religions 95 Appendix 1: Key-word: Theology of Religions 103 Appendix 2: Basic Texts 110 Glossary 118 Selected Readings 129 Index 137

Acknowledgments “Habent sua fata libelli.” When Terentianus Maurus, a Latin grammarian, probably living toward the end of the 2nd century A.D., wrote this, he was thinking about the reader who determines the destiny of a book. For the full text of the often-cited verse claims that “pro captu lectoris,” “depending on the capacity of the reader,” little books have their fate. However, I am of the opinion that books find their destiny already in the time of their origin. At least regarding this little book I can confirm this. • The book would not appear without the wonderful students I had at Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI, who attended my class on theology of religion, who were eager to learn more about it, and who practiced dialogue. • The book would not be published if Fr. Thomas Krettek SJ, now provincial superior of the Wisconsin Jesuit province, had not invited me to hold the Wade Chair at Marquette in the spring semester of 2007. • The book could also not be offered had there not been a German version published in the series of TOPOS books edited by Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Beinert, of the publishing house F. Pustet in Regensburg. It was Wolfgang Beinert who inspired me to write the little book for a greater audience interested in the subject of increasing religious pluralism. I have many reasons to express my gratitude to many companions. I want to thank, first of all, the members of the Jesuit community at 1404 W Wisconsin Ave, Milwaukee, for their friendship, and especially those who gave me the opportunity to discuss various points of content and language with them. I want to mention by name Fr. Robert J. Joda SJ and Fr. Robert Faricy SJ, of course, the chair holder of theology Fr. John D. Laurance SJ, and also Fr. Richard F. Sherburne SJ. I have to thank the colleagues of the Department of Theology, especially Dr. Irfan Omar, Fr. Philip J. Rossi SJ, Dr. John Schmitt and Dr.

8

Jesus Christ & the Religions

Ulrich Lehner for their encouragement and advice. I am grateful to the publisher Dr. Andrew Tallon, director of Marquette University Press, Milwaukee, who accepted the book in his program, to the manager of Marquette University Press, Ms. Maureen Kondrick, and to the always helpful secretariat of the Department of Theology, especially Ms. Patricia Psuik. Habent sua fata libelli. Now I invite the reader to determine the effect of the book. I wish only that it will contribute to the improvement of an interfaith atmosphere and cooperation so badly needed in today’s society.

W

To the Reader

hen I started to deal with the theology of religions in the 1970s, it was rather a hobby for specialists. In the last decades, however, it became a strong challenge for theologians and for Christian communities around the world. Wherever we are, we meet with a variety of different ethnic and religious groups. By surfing the internet we come across plenty of invitations to events in Hindu, Buddhist and new religious centers and circles. And yet, in view of many questions about religion which are posed today the readiness and ability of Christians to answer seems to be rather poor. For too long a time people were accustomed to the strength of their environment, so that personal efforts in deepening religious knowledge and practice were apparently unnecessary. In those days in Europe where I used to live, people felt a mixture of uneasiness and curiosity toward religion, even resistance, often criticism, and indifferentism. Often all this was covered up with a call for tolerance. The situation changed when the horrible terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 in New York and Washington awakened the population of the western world and opened their eyes for the aggressive elements in Islam and the presence and expansion of Islamic influence worldwide. Soon they made them reflect about violence in religion as such. In many conflicts religion is involved, in Palestine and the Near East, in many African countries, in Indonesia, in India and Pakistan. But in all its ambivalence religion is not dying. It is changing its appearances, it is true, but by no means can religion be considered a merely private affair, since its impact on public life can hardly be denied. In this sense the overall situation is rapidly changing. However, we are not living in the world of one religion anymore, the one to which we belong. Different religions are competing with each other, and we have to learn to deal with a plurality of religions which are calling for our reaction. That leads to some first observations: (1) People of today need an increased knowledge about alternative ways of thought and life, as we can experience them in adherents of different religions who live side by side with us. Knowledge, however, means that we come to know how other people understand them-

10

Jesus Christ & the Religions

selves and that we overcome prejudices which still are prevalent and often handed on to the next generation. (2) People have to know that nobody – no state, no science, also no religion, Christianity included – is entitled to lay claim to a position above all other positions, a so-called meta-position. Everybody starts from his or her own original viewpoint. That does not mean, of course: a person cannot give up or change it, or that he or she is unable to see things from a different point of view. (3) As any other person in his or her religion, Christians should know about their own Christian position. And before we enter into dialogue with other religions, other churches and communities, dialogue is required and to be exercised inside one’s own – here: the Catholic – Church. Therefore, it does not suffice that ecclesial authorities only pronounce, they have to do it in an argumentative way. Unfortunately inner-church dialogues are still not well cultivated everywhere, which stands for a grave hindrance in today’s demanded interfaith dialogue. (4) In fall of 2001, 1550 years had passed since the Council of Chalcedon with its authoritative dogmatic assertions concerning the person of Christ took place. 50 years earlier some theoretical research in the history of dogma had been done, it is true, but in our days Chalcedon’s teaching is again on the agenda of Christian theology, and that all the more, since the denial of Christ’s divinity implies a weakening of the Christian position. How much Roman authorities must have been alarmed today, can be gathered from the fact that the Congregation of Faith released three notifications which all were dealing with more or less the same Christological questions: against the Belgian Jesuit Jacques Dupuis on February 26, 2001, against the US-American Jesuit Roger Haight on February 7-8, 2005, and against the Spanish Jesuit Jon Sobrino who for many years lives in El Salvador, on March 15, 2007. In a way, the basic position of the Church was summarized in a declaration of the same Roman congregation entitled Dominus Iesus. But let us say frankly: All this is done in a rather non dialogical way. Some of the current questions will be discussed in this book, which first was written after the publication of Dominus Iesus. The main reason for it was the fact that in my country Germany the main purpose of the declaration was rather obscured, because most of the people who read the text got upset about its judgment about the character of their (Protestant) churches. However, we are living in the time of plu-

• To the Reader

11

ralism in which we have to reexamine our attitude toward ourselves and toward the others. Undoubtedly religious pluralism also makes Christians pay their tribute. This consists above all in a kind of selfrelativism, in a restraint of Christian claims to the inner-church domain and a radical change of our missionary activities since we have to restrain from active proselytizing. However, is a peaceful “convivence,” where people simply live together side by side, really enough to call it a truly human life? Has not the time come that we learn and reflect more about mutual behavior, that we are more eagerly engaged in knowing others in their otherness and that at the same time we do not forget to insist and to deepen our own belief? In a small book like this not all material available for a theology of religion can be elaborated as Jacques Dupuis SJ has done it beautifully in his voluminous work. I had to select and to restrict myself to some ideas for readers who will continue the study on their own. What I find important from the very beginning is this: In a way we have to live on two and more sides; at least we have to look from two and more sides back and forth. We have to clarify and to deepen our selfunderstanding, and at the same time we have to contemplate things from other perspectives; we have to see things with the eyes of the others and to come to an understanding of their point of view. We have to give account about our own conviction, and at the same time we have to understand how others – in our case outside of Christianity – are formed and educated in their own conviction. And we have to do it in view of the overall situation in the world. In fact, inviting the members of the different religions to a common conversation is highly important today because there are so many problems in society inside and outside of religion which call for solutions. That means, the dialogue requested today is by no means limited to us and our interfaith topics; the dialogue that is called for today has to be a contribution to the world in its quest for peace and justice, for liberation and salvation, and that very concretely. It has to be less a dialogue in theory than in practice. Jon Sobrino and others express the challenge we are facing by calling our attention to the poor and oppressed in the world, to the numerous people without a voice so that we learn to see things with the eyes of the victims. The book contains five chapters dealing both with Christianity and the approach to other religions. Chapters 1 and 3 insist on the fact that Christian faith begins and lives from and with Jesus of Nazareth;

12

Jesus Christ & the Religions

chapters 2 and 4 reexamine our attitude toward other religions. Finally in chapter 5 we concentrate on interfaith dialogue in its various perspectives. Chapter 1: “It was in Antioch,” as we know from the Acts of the Apostles 11:26, “that the disciples were first called Christians.” They were followers of the “Way” (Acts 9:2; see also 18:26; 19:9.23: 22:4; 24:14.22), and mentioned only one person whom they called the “Christ”; they were followers of the “way of Christ.” Actually, the word “Christ” implies the confession of Peter, “You are the Messiah.” (Mk 8:29 par.), it was the confession that they – the apostles – had found the Messiah, in Greek: the “Christ.” Whoever talks about Christianity but does not return to its founder, Jesus the Christ, and his way of life and death, has not understood what it means to be a Christian. Chapter 2: While dealing with “religions” we have to examine and to correct our understanding of the basic concept. ”Religion” is, first of all, an assembly of humans who search for fulfillment of their life and do this in view of a path shown and offered to them. Consequently, “dialogue of religions” is an interaction between persons, not between institutions. As a matter of fact, the history of the concept of religion proves that in the course of time the concept has been changed considerably, and we do well if we do not apply it in a rather general and generic way. Whoever deals with adherents of a concrete religion, cannot neglect its peculiarities. Chapter 3: Christianity is focused on the historical figure of Jesus of Nazareth and his significance for human existence and the salvation of humankind. This conviction found its obliging expression in the teachings of the early Councils of Nicaea (325), Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451): Jesus Christ in his person is “truly God and truly man.” The formula was always threatened in a double sense: Either Jesus’ humanity or – as in our days – his divinity is endangered or even denied. Moreover, today non-Christians (and even Christians) ask whether in fact all humankind has been saved by Jesus Christ as the only mediator. Therefore, we do well to deal with this important teaching of the Church again. Chapter 4: World history is the sum of the histories of all individuals, all human groups and communities, but it also includes the common history of humankind and even of the universe in its cosmic features. In the process of globalization we become more and more aware of the communalities of this process and of the fact that we all

• To the Reader

13

are sitting in the same boat so that everybody contributes to world history in his or her own way. We recognize common features like suffering and guilt, progress and failure, expectations and despair, hope and promises, but also experiences of healing and reconciliation, liberation and redemption, and many people speak even about experiences with God. All these experiences have their bearing on the history of humankind as such. The question is: Where is the boat of humankind driving? And who is the Lord? What are the answers of the religions? Chapter 5: In our time we live between Babel and Jerusalem, between the confusion of languages and the experience that, nevertheless, people are able to understand each other. The experience of pluralism can accomplish both: It can lead to desperate monologues and thus be hell, but it also can bring joyful enrichment and fulfillment, and it can help and save. All this depends on what people contribute. Dialogue, conversation and cooperation, in words and deeds, are a great chance of humankind. For in all their limitations humans are open to the unlimited, to the incomprehensible, to the “beyond,” to the infinite transcendence and the mystery in and behind all things – in many religions people say: they are open to God. Religions invite people to share their most precious convictions with others. Therefore, interfaith dialogue in its depth entails spiritual and an all comprising sharing, mutual openness and the proclamation of active faith in words and deeds; after all, it is in itself a forceful invitation. If the little book can give some stimulus for such an active dialogue, it has served its purpose.

About the Appendixes As appendixes are added (1) a key-word article which summarizes the main topics which should be considered in a theology of religions, (2) some few inspiring texts chosen from the Scriptures and writings of other religions, (3) a glossary which contains some basic concepts being used in the book, (4) a list of selected English readings in the field of the theology of religions and interreligious dialogue.

Chapter 1 Instead of Christianity: Jesus the Christ

“D

“Dominus Iesus”

ominus Iesus” is the formula of a profession of faith in Jesus Christ: “Jesus is the Lord.” On September 5, 2000, the Roman Congregation of Faith published a declaration, which had been signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger on August 6, titled with its opening words “Dominus Iesus.” The two words express a program:1 The declaration deals, first of all, with Jesus Christ, his uniqueness and his universal meaning for the history of salvation, and in its final chapters also with the Church. Unfortunately the primary intention of the text was very much concealed in Central Europe because the public attention was immediately drawn to the second part of the declaration which considered the Church and her fundamental hierarchical structures and failed to emphasize what unites Christians as the community of followers of Christ. Instead, it came to the rather offensive assertion that some of the ecclesial communities were not to be called “Churches in the proper sense” (nr.17). In fact the true intention of Dominus Iesus was underlined by the notification which the same congregation published on February 26, 2001. There it announced some warnings against the book of Jacques Dupuis SJ, Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism.2 The title of the book calls attention to the very concern of the declaration: It was to remind the faithful of the uniqueness of Jesus in a time where religious pluralism is spreading and Christ is seen in line with other religious founders and even interchanged by them. In view of the strong emphasis of Christianity on the importance of Christ’s saving action for the history of all humankind, the question is posed: What exactly is the place of Christianity amidst the other religions? Is Chris1 On the Lordship of Christ see in more detail J. Sobrino, Christ the Liberator. A View from the Victims. Orbis: Maryknoll, N.Y. 2001, pp.152-169. 2 Published by Orbis: Maryknoll, N.Y. 1997.

16

Jesus Christ & the Religions

tianity only one – and finally arbitrary – religion among others? Or does it insist with good reasons upon the special salvific meaning of Jesus Christ?

Not Christianity: Jesus the Christ The first answer to this question is: Christianity is not to begin by presenting itself as an institutional object or “some thing” which can be compared with other culture-creating weltanschauung and ways of life, with organizations (churches) and systems (hierarchies, religious doctrines etc.); it has to start by calling attention to a person, to Jesus of Nazareth, with whom began a movement open for all humankind, and in which the founder himself continues to live even beyond his death, – we say: after his resurrection. Therefore, being a Christian in the full sense of the word does not mean so much belonging to a weltanschauung group or a practice of life called “Christianity” or to an organization called “Church,” as it does to find and go existentially one’s way of life following the footsteps of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ. This basic idea can lose (and has lost) its full expression in the course of Christian and church history, and developed many different grades of distinctness. Actually today Christianity is mainly considered a movement based upon and originally inspired by Jesus of Nazareth, but since long ago split in many branches; at the end it turned out to be an important cultural phenomenon in world history. That does not prevent that Jesus of Nazareth remains the central figure of Christianity. The philosopher Karl Jaspers (1883-1969) commented on that in a deliberation which still can serve as guide. For him Jesus of Nazareth belongs to the great authorities and figures in history. Moreover, Jaspers maintains that he himself still has a say about him against theologians and church authorities who cannot forbid him to call himself a Christian: Theologians may say disdainfully that Bible-reading alone does not make one a Christian. I reply that no one knows who is a Christian. All of us are Christians in the sense of bible faith, and whoever claims to be a Christian should be so considered. We need not let ourselves be thrown out of the house which lodged our fathers for a thousand years. The point is how one reads the bible, and what it makes of him.

1 • Instead of Christianity: Jesus the Christ

17

… In the world, he who considers himself a Christian ought to be deemed one.3

In fact Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus the Christ remains the decisive figure of orientation for everything which has developed in Christianity after him until our present time so that its legitimacy has to be examined and measured in view of him. This has to be maintained even if the procedure of examination can be discussed, too. To repeat it again: The starting point is important for several reasons. When in 1994 my Humboldt-Lectures in Berlin were published under the title Phänomen Christentum, the book got the subtitle Eine Weltreligion in der Welt der Religionen (= A World Religion in the World of Religions).4 This corresponds to today’s reality and describes the view of Christianity from the outside. Christianity is one religion with many factors, which in the comparative science of religion can be compared with similar phenomena in other religions. Of course, existentially people might even come to conclusions like “Don’t we all believe in one God?” or “All religions are equal.” And in fact here as everywhere else in public life also regarding religion arbitrariness has become the predominant option for many people. Consequently they “buy” what they find useful on the “supermarket of religion.” Not the truth of religions counts any more, but their utility. Often this attitude is supported by the fact that in a time full of conflicts humans prefer to look for communalities, for what combines more than for what divides. As a rule the search ends up on the lowest level of mutual consent. Apparently this has the advantage that – as many people think – tolerance can be exercised in the vague form of mutual indulgences and by abandoning the question of truth. Nevertheless, we find today an increasing number of people who are not satisfied with a way of life on the lowest level of common consent just for the sake of peace; they realize that too much is being pushed aside. These people continue to ask for truth, and many do it relentlessly, because they wish to be rooted in the fullness of truth. However, where different people and groups are searching for truth, they cannot avoid contradicting points of view and perspectives; consequently they are not free from differences and occasions to struggle. For if differences 3 See K. Jaspers, Philosophical Faith and Revelation. Collins: London 1967, pp. 20f. 4 Herder: Freiburg; new edition: N. Borengässer: Bonn 2002.

18

Jesus Christ & the Religions

gain profile and give reason not to be satisfied too quickly and to give in too soon, it necessarily leads to mutual criticism. Mutual criticism, however, is part of a life in the world of pluralism. In this context we have to understand our religious option not to be determined by “some thing” but by a person or a personality like Jesus of Nazareth. A person can claim singularity and uniqueness. And yet, we should not overlook the fact that also in this case the option in favor of Jesus the Christ, at first glance, implies parallelisms and leveling.

Religious Origins: Founders As soon as Christianity is set alongside other religions, the historical Jesus of Nazareth will be aligned with the founders of other religions. Among the religions, of course, there are those without a founder (tribal and natural religions, illiterate, so called “primitive” religions). This applies in India to most of the Hindu-religions, in Japan to Shintō and in Korea to the original religion, especially to most of the classical religions in Africa, the South Sea and other countries with religions of aboriginals. These religions are not our main concern because from their origin they do not teach a path for all humans beyond their national and tribal borders. This remains valid even if in a period of growing social and cultural interconnections some of them try to overcome their initial self-limitations. It could be illustrated with the example of Hindu-movements which try to rid themselves from the Indian caste-system and to win over and incorporate members even from abroad.5 Natural religions are by no means dead, as it was impressively demonstrated by an exhibition “Altars – the Art to kneel down” in Düsseldorf/Germany in 2001/2. The exhibition did not only display 67 altars, mainly chosen from cultural contexts with popular devotions, but it put them to action by shamans and priests of various religious communities who celebrated religious rites in which spectators could even participate in some way or the other. Actually it might be meaningful to inquire how these kinds of religion respond to the needs ordinary people are facing in our days, especially poverty and oppression.

Here we are focusing on religions which are fully aware of their importance for all humankind. These are mainly religions with a certain historical origin connected with a founder. Close to Christianity there are 5 See R. Hummel, Indische Mission und neue Frömmigkeit im Westen. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 1980.

1 • Instead of Christianity: Jesus the Christ

19

Judaism and Islam with Moses and Muhammad, in Asia Buddhism with Buddha Shakyamuni, Confucianism and Daoism with Confucius, Master K’ung, and his contemporary, the “old teacher,” Lao-tse. All of these men had their disciples so that in the course of time an abiding religious practice, doctrines and organizations developed. For our days it is highly important to note which role the founder continues to play inside the community. There were different types of leaders. Frequently founders were messengers of the divine word – prophets – or teachers whose teaching consisted in a conflux of divinely inspired words and wise sayings gained by practical experiences of wisdom throughout the ages. Others were healers in physical, psychological or psycho-somatic terms. Often they were mediators or mediums in which God or the Divine took their dwelling among humans. It is interesting to note that religious figures like these appear again in our days where humans look for access to salvation and help outside of modern sciences and technologies and find it in new religious movements, and that all the more as many modern ways of life cause new anxieties and fears.

Christ Classified Here we have to pay attention to the classifications of Christ. At the beginning of his public life he placed himself in line with other people who wished to be baptized by John the Baptist (see Mt 3:13ff par). He is man among men, even though being without sin (see John 8:46; 2 Cor 5: 21; Heb 4:15; 7:26f. et al.), he stands in line with sinners. What he actively accepts, is done to him by fellow men: They hang him on the cross, and he dies the death of a criminal. The way he himself chooses his place inside the human race legitimizes the various attempts which have been undertaken in order to determine Jesus’ position in comparison with other persons. This has to be admitted although at the same time there is the danger that the uniqueness of Jesus is relativized in view of his divinity. No doubt, we have to acknowledge by all means that Jesus was true man among men. Only if we do so, a correction of our image of God becomes possible. At all times inside and outside of religions people have tried to see Jesus in a classified way.6 We mentioned Karl Jaspers. For him together with Socrates, Buddha and Confucius Jesus is counted among the 6 See in more detail H. Waldenfels, Kontextuelle Fundamentaltheologie. Schöningh: Paderborn 4.ed. 2005, pp. 223-247.

20

Jesus Christ & the Religions

great authorities of human history. The most common typologies of religious founders have been also transferred to Jesus. Evidently he can be called prophet, teacher, healer, and from the Buddhist side also an enlightened one. Hindus placed him in view of the Indian god Vishnu among the avatāra, the mediators of salvation. That the title “Christ” implies the messianic claim apparently has lost its bearing even in Jewish-Christian encounters. Jews do not meet in Christ the expected messiah any longer, and Christians are seldom aware of the fact that Christ is the Greek word for messiah = the anointed one. That means: Christ is mostly classified as prophet, teacher and healer. As in other prophetic religions such as Islam Jesus is a prophet. Although in the early church the prophetic function of Jesus lost its former attention, all gospels clearly talk about him in this way. Contemporaries confess, “This is truly the Prophet, the one who is to come into the world” ( John 6:14; cf. 1:45; 4:19). And the disciples on the way to Emmaus maintain that he was “a prophet, mighty in deed and word before God and all the people” (Lk 24:19). Later on other titles like Son of man, Son of God, and especially Christ become more prominent.7 However, in the Koran Jesus, again, is part of the prophetic history, being a member in the chain of prophets leading to the seal of the prophets, Muhammad. A special way of classification we realize in India, where – as mentioned before – Jesus is considered an “incarnation” (Sanskrit: avatāra) of Vishnu, a god granting salvation. However, evidently Jesus is neither the unique nor the only “incarnation” of God, but only one “incarnation” among others. We might well ask whether avatāra which is also used by Christians for the Incarnation of Christ, is a well chosen term. For apparently so far Christians in their minority status did not succeed in explaining the uniqueness of Jesus sufficiently and clearly to their countrymen by using the Indian concept. And yet, wherever religion focuses on the mediation of healing and salvation, Jesus is a very impressive healer and savior, who did not only know how to heal people in their bodily and psycho-somatic illnesses, but how to renew them totally by opening their eyes to the reality and the forgiveness of sin. However, this alone does not take into account 7 In discussing the titles of Jesus we have to distinguish between those describing functions exercised by him in his life, and those which indicate the beginning of theological reflection and interpretation. Actually modern critical exegesis made us more aware of this distinction.

1 • Instead of Christianity: Jesus the Christ

21

that the curing deeds of Christ were also “sacraments,” that is to say, indicative signs which point to an even more comprehensive act of healing which brings about the God, man and world uniting salvation at the end of these days. As said before, healing and salvation refer also to man in his guilt and sin by which he removes himself from God. Thus also forgiveness of guilt and reconciliation are acts of healing. In a comprehensive view Eugen Biser likes to call Christianity a fundamentally “therapeutic religion.”8 And yet, the question is whether in many of these attempts the uniqueness of Christ is not perceived in a way that at the end it is denied. In fact there are also authors, who argue this way and, insist, therefore, on the fact that ultimately Christ can, at least should not be classified at all.

“No Handle on the Cross” (Kosuke Koyama) The Japanese theologian Kosuke Koyama sums up his image of Christ in the sentence, “No handle on the Cross” and made it the title of a book.9 Koyama directs our attention toward the central event in the life of Jesus, his death on the cross, which in Christianity is accepted as a saving event for all humankind, unique in its offer and its effect. The impossibility of classifying Jesus is based upon an ultimately radically changed understanding of God. Koyama expresses the incomparability of Jesus in thoughtful way as follows: The image of Jesus under the weight of the bulky and handleless cross is a pregnant missiological image in the light of which the theological meaning of every-day Asian situation must be sought. Such an image as Jesus carrying a cross in the same way that an American businessman in Hong Kong carries a briefcase is theologically sterile and missiologically abhorrent. We can shave Jesus. We can put a necktie on Jesus. We can put a pair of glasses over his eyes and a Sony transistor radio in his hands. We can even place a colorful Diners Card in his hands (?!). But if we put a handle on his cross so that he can carry it as a businessman carries a briefcase, then the Christian faith has lost its ground. Theology is then 8 See among others E. Biser, Die Entdeckung des Christentums und das neue Jahrtausend. Herder: Freiburg 2000. 9 See K. Koyama, No Handle on the Cross. An Asian Meditation on the Crucified Mind. Orbis: Maryknoll, N.Y. 1977; quote: pp. 6f.

22

Jesus Christ & the Religions paralysed. Christian ethics has lost its inner inspiration. Such a Jesus who carries his cross as one carries a briefcase – ultimately this points to the God who carries the world around as one carries a briefcase – brings a fatal heart-attack to the Christian faith. No matter how elaborate, fascinating, efficient and resourceful it may be, the theology of such a Jesus cannot be true to the saving message and the mode of salvation given in the biblical tradition. In the Bible, the cross does not have a “handle.” Let me emphasize that for me the image of Jesus carrying over his shoulders the intolerable weight of the bulky cross – he did not know how to carry it, yet he carried it “without a handle” – is the primary image for the understanding and explication of the Christian truth urgently needed today in Asia.

While searching for a biblical basis, we have to turn to St. Paul. In his first letter to the Corinthians he reminds them that he has been sent to preach the gospel in a way “that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its meaning” (1:17). For the cross has no “handle,” there are no signs as demanded by the Jews, and there is no wisdom as requested by the Greek (see 1:22). Paul proclaims the “message of the cross,” which “is foolishness for those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God” (1:18). This presupposed the Śema – “Hear, O Israel!” (Dtn 6:4 – Appendix 2, nr.4) becomes the access to the cross. Whoever has ears to hear and thus is ready to perceive the message, is according to him enabled to hear God’s voice in its uniqueness also in other religions. For the voice of the foolishness of the cross becomes for him perceptible wherever the voice of suffering people are an echo of the deathly cry of Christ in his last hour. This precisely is also the message of theologians like Jon Sobrino and Aloysius Pieris, whose cries in favor of the poor are not to be overlooked.10 Though he ultimately never denied his Jewish identity, the Jewish scholar of sciences of religion and New Testament Pinchas Lapide (1922-1997) has to be taken for a go-between Judaism and Christianity.11 He did not hesitate to see in the Rabbi of Nazareth a person who from a Jewish perspective cannot be classified. For him Jesus’ existence 10 See their strong pleads in A. Pieris, Interreligious Dialogue and Theology of Religions, in id., Fire and Water. Orbis: Maryknoll, N,.Y. 1996, pp.154-161, and J. Sobrino (note 1). 11 See H. Waldenfels (note 6), pp.233ff.

1 • Instead of Christianity: Jesus the Christ

23

as a Jew does not exhaust itself by calling him an itinerary preacher or a teacher of the law or a poet of parables. Jesus cannot be placed in line with the men of faith whose categories we know. One difference between Judaism and Christianity, however, is marked by Lapide. For him Christianity is to be defined as a who-religion, whereas Judaism would be rather a what-religion. Christians apparently always ask, “Who?”: Who is God? Who is his Son? Who is truly a Christian? Instead faithful Jews would rather ask, “What?”: What has God done on the earth? What is his will? What is his plan for us? Actually Lapide in a way subscribes to our invitation to contemplate Christianity not so much as dealing with “some thing” but to start with a person, with Jesus the Christ. In this sense we should also rather avoid calling Christianity a “religion of a book” as frequently is done while comparing Christianity with Judaism and Islam. Anyway, here we return to the starting point of our deliberation. Whoever says Christianity, should first say: Jesus Christ. Not what today is presented as “Christian” and “Christianity,” even in the richness of its appearances, leads us necessarily to its source, but only the decision and the will to encounter the real source in all the history, that is to rediscover the person of Jesus the Christ in all ecclesial and sacramental structures, in all doctrinal systems, in dogmatic and ethics, but also in the variety of liturgy and the rituals of the Church. There are many incrustations which have to be broken up so that the true face of Christ becomes visible again. Too little attention has been paid to a small instance in the life of late Pope John Paul II. Whenever he visited a country he was eager to detect the face of Christ in Christians who had lived there, and he made them examples of true Christian life by beatifying or canonizing them. In a way he helped liberating the Church from its numbness by teaching the faithful to rediscover the hidden face of the living Christ in the faces of men and women of all races and periods of time who totally surrendered themselves to Christ and followed him in the course of their life. The response of Jesus, “whoever has seen me has seen the Father” ( John 14:9) is still to be heard wherever we can discover the face of Christ in the life of one of his disciples. If Christians were more sensitive, they would recognize that Jesus becomes visible and accessible even today in our midst, as in Pope John XXIII or Edith Stein or Mother Teresa, in Martin Luther King Jr., in Oscar Romero, Ignacio Ellacuría and others. And it must not always be the great and famous ones who represent him; of-

24

Jesus Christ & the Religions

ten his face can be detected in the little ones, in those we overlook, and who, nevertheless, carry the cross of the Lord through our time. These are – as we have to see – the poor, the destitute, the dispossessed, the displaced and disabled all over the world.

On the Way to Following Christ Correctly understood, Christianity is a religion of the way. – Jon Sobrino says, a “journeying through history.”12 That means for Christians, they should know that they are on the way with Christ. Whoever knows that being a Christian means to be on the way, will easily recognize that Christian history is the history of a way to go. He will also accept that his being a true Christian, a disciple of Christ, lives from an ever new encounter with the living Christ Jesus, and that this encounter may well occur in meeting with people suffering under their cross. For a Christian, therefore, Jesus Christ cannot be an object of research, he is much more a subject who also today reveals himself and really meets with us, and creates intersubjectivity and true communication between himself and us and among us as well. Therefore, we have to take care that continuously we stay in contact with him in discovering him in the history of today. On this we have to insist because for too long a time Christianity is been experienced as a system of doctrines and a set of moral prescriptions and of rituals following the cycles of the year and familiar feasts and events. Dogma and morals were the one side, the feasts of the year, Christmas, Easter, Pentecost, regional and local feast-days, but also initiation rites in families, baptism, first communion and confirmation, later on wedding and jubilees, finally rituals for the sick and funeral ceremonies the other side. We hardly can maintain that people ordinarily find their way from social events to a personal encounter with Christ. All the more we have to demand that Christianity develops again its characteristic of a religion offering a way. Actually it belongs to the discoveries of our days that many other religions, too, become an invitation to a way to go. Consequently religions compete with each other by offering and being a way to go. What then can we say about a religion which has to rediscover its feature of being a way to go? But we also have to ask: How do we 12 See J. Sobrino (note 1), pp.323-330. 337-340; also H. Waldenfels (note 6), pp.377-382.

1 • Instead of Christianity: Jesus the Christ

25

get along with religious leaders who are not occupied any longer with theological reflections but with instructions for the race? For religious people are runners in the arena of world history. Here we might ask: Do all runners in the arena have the same goal when they run? They are concerned with the end of their personal lives, but also with the outcome of human history, ultimately with the aim of the world in which they live. But who determines the individual and the all embracing aim? Do we ourselves determine the aim, or is it predetermined and given to us? We have to add: If our individual aim is surrounded by an even more comprehensive aim, our personal aim is related to other persons, to our environment, to family, nation and society in the broadest sense and cannot be realized without them. We might even suffer under the fact that we are too much concerned with ourselves and are blind for those who are running with us side by side. Are we aware of the people next to us on the road who suffer under the burden of the cross they are forced to carry, and do we hear the voices crying for help? At this point, aim and way, goal and path come together, and the question is: Do all of the runners go the same way? At first sight this apparently is not the case. But when we run on different paths, are we sure that they lead to an aim, and even more: to the same aim? Proverbs like “All roads lead to Rome” or “All paths lead to the top of Fuji-san” (the holy mountain in Japan) apparently claim precisely this. And yet, we have to admit that also today people go astray, miss the right path, and walk on wrong ways. Therefore, it makes sense that we entrust ourselves to a guide and walk behind him since he knows the way. Nowadays many Christians begin to remember again the word of Jesus in the gospel of John 14: 6: “I am the way.” Since in our further deliberations we are listening to this word and simultaneously watch out for other words of guidance, we have to glance to both sides, to the other religions and to the way which Jesus the Christ has assigned for us. Only someone who is on the way can imagine how much he himself will be changed by constantly considering both sides. For as long as we keep our senses open and do not keep aloof from anyone else, we meet on the way with others and strangers. Actually the other and the others become more and more our concern today. Where we really become aware of them, it becomes increasingly difficult to insert the other in his or her otherness simply into our own categories and to level down what does not fit our own world of imagi-

26

Jesus Christ & the Religions

nation. Much too long European and western history was impressed by the idea that everything and everyone unknown is inferior, therefore of no interest and useless. Even today we observe in many countries that while they are dealing with the problem of migration, the question of utility of foreigners for the domestic economy accepts a high standard of consideration. But little by little others and strangers become for us others and strangers with their own proper faces. They possess their individualities, their own dignity and their own human rights. Consequently we cannot longer talk only about them, but as we live together with them, we have to talk with them, to deal with them and to care for them. From a study of the unknown and unfamiliar a dialogue and a life shared with them spring up. Here I would like to call attention to another central point which follows from the religious aspect of the dialogue requested. If Jesus of Nazareth is to show us the way, and at the same time insists that he himself is the way, we shall miss our way as long as we neglect his God-relation. He who calls God his “Father,” manifests himself in Holy Scripture more clearly as “the Son,” and thus receives an incomparable authority. Whoever tries to relativize the claim by reducing Christ to one religious leader among others has the difficult task to prove that an alternative claim exists which can be posed against the concrete message of Christ. And considering all peculiarities which are characteristic for other religious founders, I find it difficult to discover anyone in human history who would contest the claim of Jesus Christ to be “the Son.”13

13 Here Sobrino would call attention to a second point which for too long a time Christianity has neglected: the content of Christ’s message, his announcement of God’s kingdom and the implications following from it for the present time. Indeed the kingdom finds its personal expression in the person of Jesus Christ, but it needs to be realized, or as Sobrino puts it, it has to be “lived” always anew in the course of history, until the final end of world and history is reached.



B

Chapter 2 Religion – Religions – Religiosity

efore we continue dealing with Jesus and the religions we briefly have to clear up how we understand “religion.” Therefore, we ask in the second step: How is “religion” understood in Christian theology? What is the general understanding in public conversations? Actually I would like to return to the original meaning of religion, which will teach us that this meaning cannot be simply transferred to the plurality of religions. At the same time we have to realize that what has been lost from the old concept is being restored in our days by new expressions. In fact today we speak not only about religion and religions, but also about religiosity and spirituality.

Religion as Rebinding Etymologically the original meaning of the Latin word religio cannot be explained anymore. Three possibilities are discussed: relegere = to read again, to return again and again (to a text) religari = to be bound to, to be tied to, to bind oneself back to, (in this sense: to rebind oneself ) reeligere = to re-elect, to vote again for Returning to Holy Scripture, the attitude of conversion and the renewed surrender to God – all these are characteristics of religion as they were prevalent in the early occidental history of religion. First of all, “religion” was a concept explaining a behavior and an attitude which referred to God and the order installed by him. In the theology of Thomas Aquinas “religio” was part of the cardinal virtue of justice; it referred to the attitude man owes to God (see S.th. II-II q.81 a.2; q.122 a.2). As long as the sentence is valid “agere sequitur esse” (=“acting follows being”), human action follows the order which was given by God. When, however, the sequence “being –> acting” was reversed – and this partly occurred in modern times – also the determination of orders changed.

28

Jesus Christ & the Religions

As a matter of fact in modern times humans more and more felt entitled and enabled to create their own structures. Moreover, westerners had to admit that – parallel to the history of Christianity – the histories of other religions existed. That led to two conclusions: (1) We can speak about “religion” in the plural so that the question can be posed what the “vera religio” (= “true religion” – St. Augustine) is. (2) The question of “true religion” has not only to be solved in view of the behavior of individuals, but also regarding the various forms of religious life, religious communities and socialization, religious doctrine and ritual. This presupposed that from the concept of behavior a second concept of organization or systems developed. This second concept came even more to the foreground when in the period of discoveries other religions were detected, the concept “religion” replaced the old concept “superstition,” and the occidental history of Christianity was enlarged by the history of religions. At length from the time of Enlightenment the organizational concept of religion became predominant, and in a way, the primary concept was suppressed, at least for some time.

Religion in European Understanding Also in another way European modern times were influential for the understanding of religion. For we have not only to watch the cultural regions outside of Europe which so far had not or almost had not been touched by Christianity. We have to connect the outward view – outside of Europe – with the inward view – inside of Europe. Here we become witness of the process of an inner decay and downfall of a Europe which to that time was predominantly united by JewishChristian thought. Since the beginning of modern times the one Christianity rapidly lost its central position, and this process of dissolution led to a situation which can be described as a complex reality of a society between atheism/agnosticism/secularism and pantheism. In this context the Reformation was nothing but one step into the direction described. The dissolution of the unity between state and church(es)1 led to the so called “secularization,” a process in which society and state were 1 Here we have to notice that the developments in Europe and America as the “New World” should not be simply identified.

2 • Religion – Religions – Religiosity

29

freed from the predominance of (Christian) religion and its authorities; at the same time God as the highest authority disposing about everything in private and societal life was denied or removed. The process is unfinished so far, but it can be asserted that public life develops more and more to a life “without God” – a life in which God does not exist anymore; actually it seems that nothing falls under God’s competence any longer, although even politicians start again to leave some space outside the competence of politics and human decision. “God” then becomes the cipher for the “space” which is not at the disposal of human will and authority. In fact, it seems that we have reached again a turning-point in history. For the idea of a secularist world in which humankind ends in a society without religion and without God increasingly appears to be out of date. The German philosopher Jürgen Habermas repeatedly proposed arguments in favor of a “post-secular society” where religion and reason will be equal and independent partners. And yet, at the same time the concept of a personal God is being dissolved. The change of God into a cipher makes clear that we are dealing again with a plurality of concepts and images of God. The German theologian Thomas Ruster speaks with good reason about a “confusing God,”2 so that the question of the “true God’ has to be posed again. But when the personal God is turned over into the neutral form of the divine and is to be found wherever, instead of monotheism pantheism gains a new profile. With this even in a secularized world also mysticism regains a new place. In fact we live in an ambivalent and fascinating period of time.3 Today mysticism is by no means anymore an expression for an elite approach to God. It is rather taken for a relation to God which determines the life of an individual person; it is often nourished and formed by non-Christian initiatives, but it is aiming at God-experience. In a spiritual environment in which God is seen as the creator of the universe and humans conclude from him as origin to him as ultimate aim, transcendence is more emphasized than immanence. In our days, however, many humans search for God more inwardly in the voice of 2 See Th. Ruster, Der verwechselbare Gott. Theologie nach der Entflechtung von Christentum und Religion. Herder: Freiburg 2000. 3 See the Asian texts about the beginning of the universe in Appendix 2, nr. 1 and 3.

30

Jesus Christ & the Religions

conscience, but inwardly also with regard to the biographies of other people like the saints. Accordingly they show a new interest in the life experiences of mystics, and that all the more, since to a growing degree mysticism is reclaimed by Asian religions. It is the inner way people are looking for. Hence teachers of the inner desert and of emptiness in general become also teachers in the search for God and of finding of God on the inner way. Often struggle in the world and engagement for freedom and liberation are combined with contemplation. Among the teachers we count the classical mystics at the beginning of modern times, St. Ignatius of Loyola with his Spiritual Exercises, St. Teresa of Avila with her spiritual reports, St. John of the Cross with his spiritual canticles, also the various representatives of Rhenish and Dutch mysticism, finally the mystics of our days like Charles de Foucauld, Simone Weil, Madeleine Debrèl and others.

Religions – Concrete When religion is not so much understood as the concrete relation of a single person with his God, but as a notion pointing to religious communities, their self-understanding and their ways of self-realization, the perspective is totally changed. Religion in singular becomes religions in plural. Where they are to be compared, we need criteria of discernment and judgment, but also authorities who dispose about the criteria and are able to make use of them. Moreover, the definition of religion becomes problematic. Here we only have to take into account how scholars of the different fields of science of religion, philosophy and theology quarrel with each other about the right of definition. As soon as we have to deal with a plurality of concepts defining religion as organization or system, “religion” turns to become a generic concept. Such a concept is applied to any concrete religion “from the outside.” Concretely speaking, it started by applying a concept taken from the occidental/European world where it was developed, to the non-western world, to phenomena, formations and organizations outside of the European/western world. In fact, the concept serves in no concrete religion as original self-definition, and as a result it tends to lead to a complete leveling down of any self-understanding inside a concrete religion. The term “religion” as we apply it today to the various cultural regions, is actually nothing but an attempt to understand the unknown world. Exactly speaking, we use “religion” as predicate

2 • Religion – Religions – Religiosity

31

of a sentence saying, “Christianity is a religion,” “Islam is a religion,” “Shintō is a religion” etc. Only in the case of Hinduism we meet with some difficulties. For it is not easy to subsume the manifold features of Indian religion which appeared in the course of history, and which to a high degree display independence from each other, under the concept of religion in singular. Therefore, many scholars prefer to speak about Hindu-religions in plural. It is also difficult to describe the situation of Buddhism, Confucianism, and Daoism, where an unequivocal relation to God or the divine is missing. For a long time scholars used to talk about philosophies or social ethics. In a way Daoism can be counted among the religions because its adherents are invited to discover in all this-worldliness something hidden behind and beyond, and are instructed how to reach this beyond by a number of mysterious practices. However, when “religion” becomes a predicate, it can be asked with good reason whether the sentence corresponds to reality. In this way Karl Barth, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and in our days Thomas Ruster asked whether Christianity is rightly counted among the religions. The same question could be asked about other “religions,” about Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and Confucianism. The decision of the Fathers of Vatican II to enumerate Buddhism among the religions mentioned in the declaration Nostra aetate appears somewhat arbitrary and marks an intervention in a current debate. We also cannot overlook the fact that Asian theologians like Aloysius Pieris object that Buddhism is more than a philosophy because it brings a way of liberation to humanity and implies a doctrine of salvation.4 This leads to the result that we have to be more careful in using a generic concept of “religion” and in negotiating about a segment of life which we call “religion,” disregarding its concrete forms and appearances. Indeed, sociologically speaking, “religion” ends up in being one sector of life among others. Against this outcome we have to insist upon the fact that religion is concrete, that also religions in plural are concrete and consequently have to be perceived in their concreteness. Moreover, we should not omit that the generic concept of religion was coined in Europe in view of Christianity so that the basic criteria of judging other “religions’, though unintentionally, were mainly deduced from the knowledge of Christianity as religion. 4 See A. Pieris, Love meets Wisdom: a Christian Experience with Buddhism. Orbis: Maryknoll, N.Y. 1988.

32

Jesus Christ & the Religions

That brings us again to our mutual relationships. For time has ripened in which we have not to deal any longer with “the religions,” but with concrete religions and inside of these religions with believers who find their concrete orientation in the determined religion to which they belong. Thus the “encounter of religions” will not become easier, but it should become clear that in the future we will no longer be allowed to speak and to judge about “the religions.” And since Christians are invited not to speak so much about Christianity in general, but about Jesus Christ, also other religions have to be seen from their origin: who was the founder, how did people succeed and follow him, how do they follow him today? In other words: we have to understand other religions concretely from their self-understanding and self-realization today. That brings us to the point that also the patterns of understanding cannot be any longer simply our patterns so that everything strange and alien is measured with our norms and is perceived and judged in comparison to our point of view. Of course, considering the whole field of religions, at the moment the representatives of other religions are by no means better off than the Christians; also they have to develop their appropriate methods in dealing with others. However, precisely because from the outset the attitude toward others was a problem for Christians, they have to start reexamining their real attitude toward others and strangers, and to everything other and strange in the neuter sense; for we are living in a world which grows in pluralistic thinking and acting. The danger that the theory is good, but the practice fails, is great. Therefore, we cannot deny and repeatedly forewarn that all participants of today’s dialogue are still tempted to make their own standpoint the norm of judging everything different and strange, and we invite them altogether to overcome their deficiencies in dealing with each other. In view of pluralism especially two things have to be considered: (1) Because nowhere as in Judaism and Christianity personality and thus the dignity of the single person has been emphasized so strongly, we are obliged to respect any other person in his or her personality, his or her uniqueness, his or her subjectivity and his or her dignity. We are not allowed to make others only the objects of our occupation and research, and by no means are we allowed disposing about them; on the contrary, every other person must be my personal face-to-face, a subject about which I have no right to dispose.

2 • Religion – Religions – Religiosity

33

(2) This leads to the question which Jacques Dupuis has considered: What is the positive significance of pluralism, also in the terms of history of salvation? Actually the reflection about this question just began. Certainly we do not gain much when insistence on one’s own view is hastily qualified as an attitude of arrogance and superiority and reversely – contrary to hasty rejections of the strange in the past, almost in the way of quick reparation – from the very start preference is given to everything strange which differs from one’s own. Both are a task for the future: The practical encounter between people of different origin and belonging occurs again and again anew, and confronts us with the request of a deepened mutual respect. The second task refers more to theoretical reflection and deliberation; it cannot be negotiated any longer in an ivory tower where we are occupied just with ourselves. Of course, we insist on a deep-rooted grounding in our own conviction, but at the same time we have to enter the open dispute with others which should not exhaust itself in pure apologetics or in the presentation of arguments in favor of one’s own way. Otherwise we will not be astonished if people – independently from the various standpoints of belief – try to find for themselves an apparently “neutral” place about or beyond all positions of faith, where they can form their own judgment and defend it. Ultimately the alleged “objectivity” and “neutrality” imply an existential loss of standpoint and are a guarantee of false tolerance.

Religiosity – Spirituality Wherever the concept of religion as used in science of religions becomes predominant, “religion” is mostly understood in a general, generic sense. It is described in its phenomena, structures and historical data; there is hardly an invitation to identify oneself with the study object “religion.” Personally the individual scholar might belong to a certain religious community; however, he can just stand totally aloof from any religion. Since “religion” today has little to do with its original historical meaning, in the meantime together with the concept for the organization “religion” another concept gains ground. It refers to the subjective religious existence of the individual: religiosity.5 5 I thank Dr. Irfan Omar for calling attention to the different use of the term Islam. See M. Ayoub, Islam and the Challenge of Religious Pluralism, in: Global Dialogue (Nicosia, Cyprus) 2/2 (2006), p. 62: “Islam is not, according

34

Jesus Christ & the Religions

“Religiosity” refers to a human person as existentially related to God, and begins with the inside of religion. It stresses not so much the belonging to a religious organization or community, but rather the core and origin of a religious way. People are religious who form their life from the center of their faith and live by being inspired by faith. Actually “inspiration” is a theological concept which is especially used when we talk about the origin of Holy Scripture. It refers to the “Holy Spirit” who guided the author in the writing. The way we use the term here directs our view to the people of today as far as they are enlivened by the Spirit. In Christian understanding it is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of the Father and the Son.6 How much the attention of the public is focused today on the Spirit, is evident when we realize that instead of “religiosity” more often people speak about spirituality. “Spirituality” includes the Latin spiritus, which in Greek is pneuma and in Hebrew ruach. Actually the gender of the terms changes in the different languages, which indicates that the question of gender is unimportant with regard to the Spirit. However, considering the importance of Jesus Christ some change in emphasis cannot be overlooked. For a long time logos-Christology was predominant, because theological interest concentrated on the connection between Jesus and the divine Word (Greek logos). In our days the interest shifted to the relation of Jesus and his Spirit (Greek pneuma) and his activity and salvific effectiveness even in the kosmos so that a pneuma-Christology developed. to the Qur’an and early Prophetic tradition, the name of a religion. Rather, it signifies the attitude of the entire creation before God. The term islam in this sense applies to the heavens and the earth and all that is in them, to humankind and to everything that God created. This is the first and universal plane of the meaning of the term islam. On another plane, islam applies to any human being or human communities, which profess faith in the one God and seek to obey God in all they do and say… The Qur’ an clearly distinguishes between Islam as an institutionalized religion and islam as the framework of true faith (Iman) and righteous living (Ihsan)…. The third and most concrete plane of islam is the Islam of a given community, following a particular divine law, revealed to a particular prophet. In the case of Islam, it is the sacred law (shari’a) revealed to the Prophet Muhammad.” 6 See H. Waldenfels, Gott. Auf der Suche nach dem Lebensgrund. Benno: Leipzig 2nd ed. 1997, pp. 73-86.

2 • Religion – Religions – Religiosity

35

Spiritus is derived from Latin spirare = to breathe, to inhale and exhale. “Breath” is what animates a person, vivifies him and creates him ever anew. “Spirit” is the atmosphere which surrounds us. At first glance it is without form and shape; it cannot be touched and comprehended. Precisely for that reason it is not at our disposal, but reversely humans and all animals as well are at the disposal of the spirit. In Christian understanding in which God is personal, Holy Spirit, too, is a “person.” Walter Kasper once asserted that we cannot deny the positive character of the occidental concept of person to the all-comprising spirit because in its power and might it cannot be placed below human personality but only above.7This applies to the Holy Spirit. He cannot be less or below human personality and thus impersonal, in case of doubt he can only be super- or trans-personal. For two reasons I would like to discuss the concept of person here expressly. First, the concept of person developed relatively late and entered occidental philosophy and Christian theology differently. In philosophy Boëthius (480-524/5) defined “person” as “naturae rationalis individua substantia” (= individual substance of a rational nature), in other words, he determined it as human individuality. In such a way “person” has been understood in the history of the western civilization up to the present time. “Person” implies human singularity which cannot be communicated any further (Latin incommunicabilis), and it contains the mystery which is given with every single human being. In theology, however, we speak about “three persons” in one God. Consequently, individuality in the way of three substances which would lead to a belief in three gods had to be excluded. Instead the true essence of “person” in God was understood as “relation” so that we meet in God with the interrelatedness of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. According to Gisbert Grehake,8 both elements of the concept – “individuality” resp. “incommunicability” as ultimate being-oneself and “relationality” as radical openness-forany-communication – have theological roots. Only in the middle of the last century both lines joined to the point that a human person is seen both as an individual and a relational being. In our days this concept of “person” is highly important for the discussions in comparative anthropology and interfaith dialogue, especially while 7 See W. Kasper, Glaube und Geschichte. Grünewald: Mainz 1970, pp.136f. 8 See G.Greshake, Der dreieine Gott. Eine trinitarische Theologie. Herder: Freiburg 1997.

36

Jesus Christ & the Religions discussing the understanding of human beings in Asia, in India and in China. A second deliberation had to clarify whether in the case of personality we have to think from God to man or from man to God. In the first case the perfect realization of personality is being found in the triune God, and the human person is only a limited image of divine personality. In the second case human personality in its limitations has to be broken up into a super- or trans-personality in God. The Japanese philosopher Keiji Nishitani (1900-1990) interpreted the western concept of person in the sense of Descartes’ ego as a limited individuality which in its radical egocentrism needed to be broken up. Consequently he opted for a concept of person which overcomes all limitations; he did it by confronting it with or holding it in what he calls “absolute nothingness” or “emptiness” (Sanskrit śunyatā). Nevertheless, contrary to many Asian thinkers, he confesses: “The idea of man as person is without doubt the highest idea of man yet to appear. The same may be said of the idea of God as person.”9

Thus religiously living means living by virtue of the Holy Spirit who works in a religion or on a religious path. However, as we ask for the “true God” among all gods, we have to ask also for the true Spirit among the spirits. The first question about the true God has been solved in a first step where we overcome the multitude of gods – polytheism – by the vote for one God – monotheism. In a second step the question has to be discussed whether the one God whom is spoken about in the various religions, is truly one and the same God. This could be illustrated by looking at the different estimations of the God of Islam, Allah, and the Jewish God, Jahwe, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, whom Christians adore also as the God of Jesus Christ. In view of Allah, there are on the one hand those who identify Allah and Jahwe – they are the majority; on the other hand there are others who emphatically doubt or even deny it. The contest for one God is unfinished. Less distinct than the question of God and gods is the question of Spirit and spirits, even less the question of the total loss and absence of spirit, although many segments of life appear spiritless and simply dull. Different from the theological discussion of the question of God, 9 See K. Nishitani, Religion and Nothingness. University of California Press: Berkeley – Los Angeles 1982, p.69; see also H. Waldenfels, Absolute Nothingness. Foundations for a Buddhist-Christian Dialogue. Paulist: New York 1980.

2 • Religion – Religions – Religiosity

37

there is a long history of the discernment of spirits, Latin discretio spirituum; it starts long before the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola, which by itself has become a very important date in the history of spirituality, of spiritual practice and methodology. We can easily imagine that the theme gains a high grade of actuality in today’s encounter of religions, especially where we experience it as an intersection of spiritualities. Spirituality, spiritual practice, and spiritual experiences receive a new momentum in a time where institutional strengths of religious communities and spiritual weaknesses contradict each other. In fact the admonition which late Pope John Paul II gave in his letter to the German Cardinals and the German Church on January 22, 2001 hits the point: Gratefully I confirm that the Church in your country possesses solid organizational structures and is present in public life by many institutions. At the same time we cannot overlook that an increasing number of people withdraw themselves from an active life of faith or accept the Gospel and the ecclesial doctrines only partially. The progressing process of secularization and the loss of faith connected with it threaten the Church to become undermined from within, so that it might be appear strong from the outside, it is true, but interiorly it gets weak and loses its authenticity.

In our days religion and religiosity fit together like structure and content. Where religion exhausts itself in elements of structures, it tends to become a museum, which holds its interest, but does not stand for vital energy. Therefore, today’s call for spirituality in all religions is an invitation to consider the sources from which a religion lives.

God-Relation and/or Human Work? In recalling the process of secularization worldwide we face another problem which we have to deal with. Where religion is an object of research of sciences which is unrelated to the concrete act of faith, the question of the very founder of religion in general and of the single religion is of little interest. That is to say: The question whether or not God stands behind the different founders of a particular religion or with whose authority a religion comes about, is finally an open question. For quite a while it seemed that in this context the question of God is no longer posed. Today this cannot be simply affirmed.

38

Jesus Christ & the Religions

Posthumously a book of the German sociologist Niclas Luhmann (1927-1998) was published: Die Religion der Gesellschaft (= The Religion of Society).10 Here religion has the function to develop something like confidence in meaning (“Sinnvertrauen”). In every system we come to face the problem that we can observe things and act inside the own system, but that there remains the difference between what can be observed and what not. The observer cannot observe his own act of observing. The eye cannot see its act of seeing. For the system “religion” Luhmann solves the problem by making God the “observer God,” that is to say: the one who suspends the difference between observing and being observed, so that he is beyond all distinctions or the transcendence of the tension of difference and unity. We leave aside the task of the theologians who then are confronted with the impossible task to “observe” and to legitimize the observing role of God. It suffices to recognize that making religion a function leads to the point that the question of God, too, is reduced to a function in a system of thought. According to Luhmann God is “securing our orientation in a way that cannot be replaced otherwise”; without him “orientation” becomes a problem. In one point Luhmann is right. If beyond the inner worldly points of reference to the problem of origin God and his position in religions become a question, God easily turns out to become an object of research. Theologians have to deal with this problem. However, what is to be done if God withdraws himself from a science which wants to objectify him, because the all comprising instance withstands any attempt of objectification? A secular view of religions admits several responses to the question of origin. Starting from man as subject and creator of culture and all cultural segments, religion is either human work or creation of a higher being which is distinct from human beings. Where the world is considered as creation of God, religio, the “rebinding” to God, is to be counted among the creatures of God. If, however, religion is seen in the world of unbelief and atheism and therefore part of a secularized world, it turns to be a purely human work, as even God becomes a human creature. It suffices to recall the names of thinkers like Ludwig

10 Suhrkamp: Frankfurt 2000; see pp. 147-184; quote: p. 184.

2 • Religion – Religions – Religiosity

39

Feuerbach, Karl Marx or Sigmund Freud.11 For all of them God was a human fiction and projection, so that the sentence of Gen 1:26 that God created man in his image and after his likeness had to be reversed into the sentence that man created God to his image and according to his likeness. God becomes a human projection, an ideal image of man, the “super-man” (F. Nietzsche). Accordingly religion becomes a superstructure of society and the social circumstances, and acts, anyway, as a function of the societal reality. However, whenever the cry of Friedrich Nietzsche “God is dead!” resounds in the marketplaces of the world, man falls back upon himself. In fact, what is a religion without God? Where the Holy of the Holy is empty, there remains place only for new idols. And in our days we begin to talk about those idols: money, youth, consumption, health and others. But even today there exist people who – in the words of Martin Luther who calls a sinner “homo incurvatus in seipsum” (WA 56, p. 356) – are not willing to curve themselves into themselves, like a serpent does – people who instead reach out for what is above and beyond all limits and limitations. If we do not restrict ourselves to the teaching about the JewishChristian God, we have to permit also people who are not Christian to say how they overcome their limitations. Overcoming one’s limits means also becoming free – liberation, redemption. Where life is experienced as injury, we use to say being healed – healing and salvation. Where there is hostility, quarrel and war, we look for reconciliation and agreement – peace and harmony. Whatever people in situations like these have in mind, they pursue in their earthly life, and often they also succeed in finding traces of fulfillment. However, the threshold of death does not permit humans to realize their ideals on earth completely. In view of all final limits humans remain helpless. Here it is important how humans react. They can heroically acquiesce in it. They can try to work out new free space and to dislodge the limits. They also can ask for help from beyond all borderlines in the hope that there exists some infinite “beyond” all finitude. They can be convinced that a word of promise was given from beyond. This “beyond” might be concealed

11 See in more detail H. Waldenfels, Kontextuelle Fundamentaltheologie. Schöningh: Paderborn 4th ed, 2005, pp.48-56. 132-143

40

Jesus Christ & the Religions

behind a veil. Behind the veil we can imagine an infinite openness and emptiness as well. Both could be imagined.12 Nobody can deny that words of promise, the announcement of immortal life – in Christian terms: of resurrection, in Buddhist terms: of deathlessness – also the vision of an abiding community beyond death and a “new city” exist in history. We might judge that these kinds of projections of the future are not realistic, but it is a matter of fact and therefore real that these kinds of projections do exist in human history. When, on the one hand, people are convinced that these projections will become true and, on the other hand, others maintain that they have to be rejected, this has nothing to do with the fact that the words of promise really exist in history; it has only to do with the human reactions to these words. Hildegard of Bingen, a German Benedictine nun, has painted her many visions in the way of mandalas in different colors and shapes. A copy of her best known mandala is hanging over the main altar of the church where the saint is buried, in Eibingen, not far from her abbey. This mandala, too, is dominated by colored circles but they do not exhaust themselves in emptiness, they give room for a figure which comes from the back to the front: it is the figure of a man, evidently the person of Christ. We can compare the picture with presentations of radical emptiness in Zen Buddhism, e.g. with the eighth station of the famous oxen path: an empty circle, not more, and yet, beaming like the sun.13 12 J. Sobrino, Christ the Liberator. Orbis: Maryknoll, N.Y. 2001, pp.71ff, speaks explicitly about unveiling experiences, experiences in which “reality, so to speak, takes the initiative and unveils itself,” and “some dimension of finality is unveiled.” “This unveiling of reality is accepted with a triple gratitude. First, because what is unveiled sets us in the truth of the situation, the true principle and basis for building up what is human. Second, because much of what is unveiled is good and positive… Third, because the fact of reality being unveiled is perceived as a gift…” (p. 71). According to Sobrino, in the final analysis, experiences such as these “directly reveal their anthropological dimension, but it is not difficult to describe them from their transcendental correlative, their theological dimension” (p. 72). 13 We shall deal in Chapter 5 with the 10th of the famous oxen path which serves as a description of the various stations leading to enlightenment. Although enlightenment is attained in the 8th station, there follow two more

2 • Religion – Religions – Religiosity

41

Mandala hanging over the tomb of St. Hildegard of Bingen in the parish church of Eibingen, Germany (From Hildegard von Bingen, Wisse die Wege – Scivias. O. Müller: Salzburg 1954)

A more intensive study of the present religions would prove that practicing believers escape the purely human projections and dreams by sharpening their senses, especially eyes and ears, so that beyond their outer perceptions in the world they reach to inner perceptions, and they understand that these perceptions are given to them as a gift; in biblical and theological terms we have to speak about grace. Here something else should be added. Though humans receive something only by grace, they can express it afterwards only in hustations which describe the new relationship to nature and to other people. See there note 5.

42

Jesus Christ & the Religions

man speech and gestures. Speech and gestures are instruments which generally are not adequate to express the true reality fully. In some way also what we perceive as religious is human work, at least expressed in human way. However, we are not to understand that religion exhausts itself in finite human ways. It is part of the discoveries we make in these days, not only in Christianity, but also in other religions, that we meet with traces of the infinite reality which communicates itself to human persons. Therefore we talk about “re-velation,” the removal of the veil, about God’s self-revelation and self-communication which creates its own language and expression. Vatican II explicitly maintains that the Catholic Church “rejects nothing of what is true and holy in the religions,” because “they often reflect a ray of that truth, which enlightens all men.” Therefore, Christians should “acknowledge, preserve and encourage the spiritual and moral truths found among non-Christians, also their social life and culture” (Nostra aetate nr. 2). If this is the case, it is one of the highest tasks of the Church in our days to seek the rays of truth and the spiritual and moral goods and values in other religions. It cannot be the first duty to search for real or alleged deficiencies and errors, and to do this mainly from one’s own perspective. Just as Christians wish that justice be done to them,

2 • Religion – Religions – Religiosity

43

even though often enough human failures have been committed in Christian history, so we have to do justice to everybody else. With this attitude in mind we ask again, first, how Christians understand themselves, then, how we see the others, finally, what the consequences are as soon as we acknowledge the traces of truth and holy in other religions.

Chapter 3 1550 Years after Chalcedon “Chalcedon – End or Beginning?” (Karl Rahner)

W

hen in 1951 the 1500th anniversary of the Council of Chalcedon was commemorated, Karl Rahner wrote an article “Chalcedon – End or Beginning?”1 Rahner pleaded for “beginning” because – as he wrote – the knowledge of God can “only be genuine, only make blessed, in the knowledge of his incomprehensibility: at that point, then, in which comprehension and the determining limits of what is known are jointly transcended in the Incomprehensible and the Unlimited.” And he continues: Because every truth of the God who reveals himself is given as a way and an incitement to the closest immediacy of communion with him, it is all the more an opening into the immeasurable, a beginning of the illimitable. The clearest and most distinct formulation, the most sanctified formula, the classic condensation of a centuries-long work of the Church in prayer, reflection and struggle concerning God’s mysteries: all these derive their life only by the fact that they are no end but beginning, not goal but means, only one truth which makes us free for the – ever greater – truth

And yet, even admitting the relativity of formulations, we have to maintain that the pronouncements of the Council of Chalcedon are normative points of orientation for the Christian churches and their theologies until today, so that we cannot convincingly talk about Jesus Christ, if we bypass them. Therefore, also the declaration Dominus Iesus lives from the memory of the teachings of this council (cf. nr. 6 and 10). It is the conviction of Christianity that God became man in Jesus of Nazareth and thus has become a member of humankind as it lives forth in history. What in the togetherness of God and man = non-God, eternity and time, transcendence and immanence in a para1 Reprinted as Current Problems in Christology, in K. Rahner, Theological Investigations. Vol. I, pp.149-200; quote: p.149 (with some minor changes).

46

Jesus Christ & the Religions

dox way was joint together in the person of Jesus, is originally testified in the New Testament of the Church. From that time on it has been reflected again and again as the great astonishing and incomparable miracle and mystery, and found expression in the Council of Chalcedon in until now unrivalled and unsurpassed formulas. That is the reason that since then they have been the decisive norms in the Church. (1) “the same truly God and truly man” (2) “one and the same Christ – in two natures which undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation” (3) “two natures in a single person and a single subsistent being”

It might be worthwhile to read the classic text in full length:2 So following the saintly fathers, we all with one voice teach the confession of one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body, consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father as regards his divinity, and in the last days the same for us and for our salvation from Mary, the virgin God-bearer, as regards his humanity; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures which undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation; at no point was the difference between the natures taken away through the union, but rather the property of both natures is preserved and comes together into a single person and a single subsistent being; he is not parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same onlybegotten Son, God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ, just as the prophets taught from the beginning.

Negative Christology Since the first formula – “truly God, truly man” – and also the third one – “two natures in a single person” – are mostly conceived as positive statements, for too a long time it remained rather unnoticed that the decisive judgment concerning both formulas is negative. In view of their abiding-paradox assertion Gregor M. Hoff – like Walter Kasper

2 Quoted from Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed. N.P.Tanner, I, p.86.

3 • 1550 Years after Chalcedon

47

– rightly speaks about the “paradigm of a negative Christology.”3 The four attributes “no confusion, no change, no division, no separation” appear like four landmarks which indicate the tension of “truly God, truly man.” Where things are confused, one of the two natures will be removed, and either being God or being man will be curtailed or even abandoned: We end up in “monophysitism.” In the time of the council the divinity of Christ was stressed in a way that his humanity got damaged and almost disappeared. In our days the situation is reversed: Emphasis is put more on Christ’s humanity which leads to the loss, at least a weakening of his divinity. The attribute “no change” we can leave aside. A discussion would lead to a more detailed debate of the concept of God. We would have to ask for God’s ability to suffer and would come to the question: How “apathetic” is God really?4 Also the attribute “no division” does not need to be discussed here because in a way it can be treated together with the other attribute “no separation.” An attempt to avoid “confusion,” however, can be seen in the opposite trial of a partial separation, not only distinction of the two natures. At first glance arguments of plausibility seem to call for such a solution. Jesus of Nazareth as a human being is already finite by birth and death, and is provided with all limitations of a created being (cf. Dominus Iesus nr. 6, 7). Therefore, he is limited in his intellectual power and in his concrete ways of acting. Today’s debate is mainly concerned with the problem of preexistence of Jesus Christ, with the tension between the eternal Word and the entrance of Jesus of Nazareth whom we confess to be the Christ, into history. The same tension of time and 3 See G.M. Hoff, Chalkedon im Paradigma Negativer Theologie, in Theologie und Philosophie (Frankfurt) 70 (1995) pp. 355-372. J. Sobrino, Christ the Liberator. Orbis: Maryknoll, N.Y. 2001, p. 291, remarks similarly: “Chalcedon was respectful of the reality and therefore did not attempt to make the how of the relationship between the two natures comprehensible. Furthermore, the four adverbs are defined in the negative, which means that the conciliar definition states what does not happen in the union of the nature, but not what positively does. In doing so, it abandons any positive explanation of the mystery of Jesus Christ, but it does provide positive pointers to it.” 4 See J. Sobrino (note 3), pp. 265-274, who elaborates on the God-suffering relationship as it was debated in the time of the council of Nicaea; see on God’s suffering also H. Waldenfels, Gott. Auf der Suche nach dem Lebens­ grund. Benno: Leipzig 2nd 1997, pp. 60-72.

48

Jesus Christ & the Religions

eternity shows up again where the relation of the Spirit Creator and the manifestation of the same Spirit of the Father and the Son in the Spirit of Jesus come into consideration (see nr. 12). Here the question is: Is there not an activity of the Word and the Spirit of God as such, which surpasses the activity given with the Spirit of Jesus?

Separation instead of Distinction? The separation of the Word and Jesus of Nazareth is explicitly mentioned in the notification about Jacque Dupuis and again in Dominus Iesus nr. 10f. In nr. 2 of the notification it is stated: It must also be firmly believed that Jesus of Nazareth, Son of Mary and only Savior of the world, is the Son and Word of the Father. For the unity of the divine plan centered in Jesus Christ, it must also be held that the salvific action of the Word is accomplished in and through Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Son of the Father, as mediator for salvation for all humanity. It is therefore contrary to the Catholic faith not only to posit a separation between the Word and Jesus, or between the Word’s salvific action and that of Jesus, but also to maintain that there is a salvific activity of the Word as such in his divinity, independent of the humanity of the Incarnate Word. (nr.2)

The text says that the Chalcedonian formula “no separation” does not permit that the activity of the Divine Word be separated from the activity of the Word become flesh, so that there cannot be a space which would be free of any relation to the activity of Jesus Christ. It would only make sense to distinguish between the order of being and the order of knowledge; in the order of knowledge, however, we are dealing, firstly, with the reality, more precisely: with the constitution of the human existence of Jesus, and, secondly, with the reality of the members of humankind following the incarnation of Jesus. We cannot deny that the answer to both questions, the relation of Jesus to the Divine Word and to the Divine Spirit, has to be gathered from the witnesses about the earthly life of Jesus and that the teaching about the inner-trinitarian life of God has to follow from the biblical testimonies about the reality of the triune God as we meet with it in the life of Jesus. What has been summed up in the prologue of St. John’s gospel about the reciprocal relationship between God and the Word and, again, about the Word become flesh in Jesus, cannot be simply sacrificed in a time of doubt, when our thinking seems to

3 • 1550 Years after Chalcedon

49

fail. Negative theology does not mean that human persons like to dispose and to discern arbitrarily about God’s possibilities; it is, rather, the fundamental openness for the Deus semper maior, the God who is always greater than human persons can imagine, and who is able to frustrate all human expectations. Being the deus semper maior implies also the Deus semper minor,5 the God beyond all human imaginations, who can manifest himself as great and as little. What, however, is littler than a God who becomes man, a child in the crib and a person who dies on the cross like a criminal? And what shows more greatness than a God who in his incomprehensibility becomes “comprehensible” in the body of Christ, so that we can touch him and hold him, the untouchable, incomprehensible God? As is written in 1 John 1:1-3: What was from the beginning, What we have heard, What we have seen with our eyes, What we looked upon And touched with our hands Concerns the Word of life – For the life was made visible; We have seen it and testify to it And proclaim to you the eternal life That was with the Father and was made visible to us – What we have seen and heard We proclaim now to you, So that you may have fellowship with us; For our fellowship is with the Father And with his Son, Jesus Christ.

However, this beautiful text of the New Testament describes at the same time the point where the concern of the early Church began to shift from proclaiming what had been seen and heard and handed over in the form of narratives to theological reflections on the constitution of Christ in his incarnation. As Jon Sobrino summarizes it, “In the Patristic Age all was to be concentrated gradually on the incarnation – believed as a real event but viewed as so transcendent that it came to overshadow the rest of Jesus’ real life. The reality principle was here undergoing a devaluation.”6 5 See H. Waldenfels (note 4), pp. 81ff. J. Sobrino (note 3), pp. 86ff. 6 See J. Sobrino (note 3), p. 228; in more detail pp. 225-232.

50

Jesus Christ & the Religions

The Christological conflict in our days has much to do with the results of historical research in the development of the doctrines of the Church, but also with the situation in which we have to proclaim the faith today. Often the ecclesial authorities do not take into account the results of scholarly research sufficiently, as can be learnt from the strong replies to the recent notification against Jon Sobrino.7 On the other hand, the Church has to defend the doctrinal formulas of Chalcedon as they stand, considering the fact that there is a tendency to deny the significance of Christ’s salvific action for all humankind. And here it makes sense to defend the traditional positions with good reasons; we only have to ask whether it suffices the way it has been done. One argument can be gathered from the Church’s prayer life. Here we realize that sometimes the praying Church is more progressive than speculative theological reflection. So in a hymn of a daily hour in the German breviary it is said: Christ, divine Lord, Whoever has strength to love, will love you, Unconsciously, who does not know you, Passionately, who knows about you.

The difference between “unconsciously” and “passionately,” subjective not-knowing and subjective knowing, reminds us of the long disputed question about explicit and implicit faith. Some general observations can help us to understand what it means to talk about “implicit faith.” It is a slogan of our days, “Think globally, and act locally.” In fact even today most of the people still feel at ease at home (if they have one), in their intimate local atmosphere, and yet hardly anyone can avoid being overrun and overwhelmed by all kinds of external influences, TV and internet, PC and other ways of communication, advertising and public opinion; we are dependent on technological devices and become their slaves And there are only small chances to escape. One of the modern keywords is “inter-”: We are interconnected, interrelated, international, intercultural, no wonder, we deal with interfaith and work interreligiously. “Inter-“, however, in general implies dependence; not much is 7 I mention only two German reactions which have been published soon: B. Sessboüé, Jesus Christus aus der Sicht der Opfer, in Stimmen der Zeit (München) 4/2007, pp.240-254, and P. Hünermann, Moderne Qualitätssicherung? Der Fall Sobrino ist eine Anfrage an die Arbeit der Glaubenskongregation, in Herder Korrespondenz (Freiburg) 61 (2007), pp. 184-188.

3 • 1550 Years after Chalcedon

51

left from the dream of autonomy and independence which inspired modern man. Here we understand also what the concept “implicit faith” will say. Knowing that we have not the slightest chance to get some general and overall view about everything, including even moments which are existentially fundamental, we still have the chance to foster a sense of trust and confidence and keep ourselves open for everything which might be good for us personally, and for all the others who are in the same boat of life with us. And as a new sensibility for the social impact of irresponsible behavior and the reality of the social aspect of sin originates, the sense for a universal impact of life and death of a person like Jesus Christ might grow again. We know that God can save people “in ways known to himself ” (Ad gentes nr. 7; see Lumen gentium nr. 16). This conviction gives reason to insist on two points: (1) As any human action positively or negatively occurs in history and, though in different degrees, affects history as such, also in life and death of Jesus Christ have affected and still affect human history in its totality. (2) This impact on history is real and exists independent from the explicit or implicit reaction of single persons, their acceptance or denial. As a result we say for the Christian self-understanding: (1) The ecclesial message of the uniqueness, and not only of the singularity of Jesus Christ is essentially based upon faith in Jesus, “truly God, truly man,” and refers to the reality of Jesus, not to a later interpretation. (2) Undoubtedly the linguistic formulas have their historical and cultural place, concepts like “subsistent being” (Greek hypostasis) and “nature” find their initial context of origin and formation in Greek philosophy, and also “person” is no biblical term. The transfer of these concepts and conceptions into other linguistic, philosophical and cultural contexts is a problem of its own. However, we have to concede that – in spite of all limitations – on behalf of the common human nature adequate translations in principle must be possible. (3) All that remains valid, although – even acknowledging the two natures in Christ – ultimately the Chalcedonian formula cannot positively explain how the togetherness of divinity and humanity in the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth takes place. Human speculation comes here to an end. Therefore, the statements can only negatively explain what modes of realizations and explications are to be excluded. In this sense the four attributes “no confusion, no change, no division,

52

Jesus Christ & the Religions

no separation” are no ways of explaining the two natures. Who likes to argue, has to do it differently, be it that a parallel claim is put forward – such a claim I do not perceive in the encounter of religions – be it that one of the excluded attributes is used in order to relativize or to negate the Christian doctrine. But what seems to be more important: Christians are requested to reexamine their own ways of argumentations, and the various reflections inside the Church offer a good opportunity to do it in these days. (4) Considering the points raised it should be examined how far the various theses of the notification concerning Jacques Dupuis are a practical application of a negative theology which by definition implies limitations for all attempted positive arguments. Rightly Hans Kessler maintains: In its wise reserve the dogma of Chalcedon gives wide space for witnessing what ‘truly God and truly man’ means. It maps out the regulative frame and offers criteria which should be considered in Christological theory and speech, unless essential moments of the testimonies about Christ in the New Testament are not taken into account. The dogma maps out the frame, but it does not fill it with life. This, however, is not the task of a dogmatic formula; it has rather to be done – in different modes of speech (narrative, doxological etc.) – in view of Holy Scripture and the communal experiences which the faithful make with Jesus Christ. Therefore, in fact the dynamics of Scripture and of the Church Fathers are missing in the formula.8

Kessler summarizes the statement of the council as follows: Out of incomprehensible mercy the eternal Son of God humiliated himself to undergo the baseness and iniquity of this world as a weak human person in order to offer us community with him and salvation. Salvation is given us through the incarnation of God.

The assertion “he humiliated himself ’ has to be emphasized; it has been taken from the letter of St. Paul to the Philippians. In his famous letter to Bishop Flavian of Constantinople of 449 Pope Leo I already referred to Phil 2:5-11 and wrote:9 8 See Th. Schneider (ed.), Handbuch der Dogmatik vol. I. Düsseldorf 1992, p.353. 9 See Tanner I (note 2), p.78.

3 • 1550 Years after Chalcedon

53

He ( Jesus Christ) took on the form of a servant without the defilement of sin, thereby enhancing the human and not diminishing the divine. For that self-emptying whereby the Invisible rendered himself visible, and the Creator and Lord of all things chose to join the rank of mortals, spelled no failure of power: it was an act of merciful favor. So the one who retained the form of God when he made humanity, was made man in the form of a servant. Each nature kept its proper character without loss; and just as the form of God does not take away the form of a servant, so the form of a servant does not detract from the form of God.

“Form of a servant” and “self-emptying” deepens the understanding of incarnation. “Self-emptying” is the translation of the Greek “ekenōsen heauton” (Phil 2:7) = “he emptied himself.” Remembering the Greek term of “emptying” – kenōsis” – some theologians today talk again about “kenotic Christology,” and because ultimately it is God’s own “kenōsis,” also about “kenotic theology.” That is to say: Almighty God chooses in Christ for himself the state of total weakness and powerlessness. Who possesses divine plenitude, empties himself totally. God chooses the part of the poor, the abandoned and the suffering, and makes himself the “suffering God” (K. Kitamori).10 Actually this approach is very important for today’s encounter with Buddhists and their discussion of “emptiness” (Sanskrit śūnyatā).

Jesus Christ, the universal Mediator of Salvation The announcement of Jesus Christ as the universal mediator of salvation as such does not imply the will to compete with other religions, but flows from the faith in God’s Incarnation. The dissension begins where other religions appear on the stage of the world with an analogous announcement and seem to compete, especially if they offer their invitation exclusively. What weakens the formula of Chalcedon today was its strength in the time of the council: its philosophical terminology and its lack of reference to Holy Scripture. As I mentioned before, the second point is not only a linguistic problem, but implies an important shift in dealing with the person of Christ. Whereas strong attention was paid to the relationship of Jesus and God, his Father, con10 See K. Kitamori, Theology of the Pain of God. John Knox: Richmond 1965.

54

Jesus Christ & the Religions

sequently to Jesus as the “only-begotten Son” ( John 1:14.16; 3:16.18), a second aspect was more and more neglected: Christ’s own message of God’s kingdom. We shall return to this point later. Here I would like to quote first two contemporary theologians who both beautifully explain the sonship of Jesus of Nazareth and reach in a significant way the kenotic side of Christ’s incarnation; the first one is actually the pope, the second one prefect of the Council for the Unity of the Church.

Joseph Ratzinger – Benedict XVI11 To John “Son” means being-from-another; thus with this word he defines the being of this man (= Jesus) as being from another and for others, as a being that is completely open on both sides, knows no reserved area of the mere “I.” When it thus becomes clear that the being of Jesus as Christ is a completely open being, a being “from” and “towards,” that nowhere clings to itself and nowhere stands on its own, then it is also clear at the same time that this being is pure relation (not substantiality) and, as pure relation, pure unity. This fundamental statement about Christ becomes, as we have seen, at the same time the explanation of Christian existence.

Walter Kasper12 In his absolute obedience Jesus is absolute dependence on and absolute surrender to God. He is nothing in himself, but totally from God and for God. He is totally an empty mould giving form to God’s self-communicating love. In this relationship Jesus’ attachment to the Father obviously supposes an attachment and a selfgiving on the part of the Father to Jesus. The latter Son-Christology is no more than the interpretation and translation of what is hidden in the filial obedience and submission of Jesus. What Jesus lived before Easter ontically is after Easter expressed ontologically.

Wherever Christians announce Jesus the Christ as the mediator of universal salvation, they have to know that the announcement follows from the biblical testimonies of the disciples and their faith in Jesus, 11 See J. Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity. Ignatius: San Francisco 1990, p.134. 12 See W. Kasper, Jesus the Christ. Paulist: New York 1976, p.110. “Ontically” means “really,” “ontologically” “reflected and conceptualized.”

3 • 1550 Years after Chalcedon

55

the “Son” of God, which finds its continuation in the faith in our savior. However, we should not lose sight of the process going on inside the early Church because the memory of this process is one of the causes for the debate in our days. Actually two problems had to be solved: (1) How can we speak about Jesus the ”Son” as God without compromising the faith in the one and unique God which both Jews and Christians profess? Here the Church responded with the early creeds, the Apostolic and the one phrased in the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople. (2) How can humanity and divinity be united in one human person without destroying the unity of the person, in other words: the subject who sustains both “natures,” but in a way that both “natures” – humanity and divinity – are essentially preserved in the tension of one person? In reply to this question the Council of Chalcedon worked out a frame stating that Jesus Christ is “truly God” without losing sight of the fact that he is “truly man.” For the early speculation on the constitution of the human person of Christ this formula signifies – as Karl Rahner pointed out – an insurmountable end-point. Therefore, whenever in the following periods of time Christians met with opposition at first they had no other mandate but defense. However, as a consequence of the rather speculative deliberations the concrete earthly life of Jesus and his message of the kingdom were increasingly neglected in preaching and theology as well.

After 1550 Years In the time of pluralism we begin to understand that Chalcedon not only marks an end-point, but also a new starting-point. This has to do with the fact that the discussion around Jesus Christ no longer starts only from the Christian creed, but many times is determined by the fact that different groups in the world – religions as well as nonreligious communities – come out with their own universally valid promise of salvation. Christianity is no longer the only presenter, but often enough the message of salvation, liberation and redemption for everybody can also be heard somewhere else, and becomes part of the beginning interreligious dialogue, too. A dialogue in our days calls, first of all, for an equal right and position for any participant. No one is allowed to enforce his view upon

56

Jesus Christ & the Religions

others, no one is to determine the agenda by himself und obliges everyone else to follow. And – what is important by all means – the partners should not speak about each other, they have to speak with each other. The recognition of equal ranking among the participants does, of course, not mean that the various opinions are being neutralized and have to be admitted by anybody. Applying this to the question of salvation, three different attitudes are being distinguished: (1) Exclusiveness: Only one way is negotiable: one’s own; all others are rejected as possible access to salvation. In Catholic theology this attitude found expression in the famous slogan “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus,” “Outside the Church there is no salvation.” In a study Christianity and the Religions elaborated by the International Theological Commission and published on September 30, 1996, the sentence was clearly rejected in favor of “Extra Christum nulla salus,” “Outside of Christ there is no salvation” (nr. 70). In this document the salvific relevance of other religions remains rather open (see nr. 81-87). (2) Inclusiveness: From a Christian point of view inclusiveness can be understood as follows: Although according to Christian self-understanding the attainment of salvation is bound to Church membership and attachment to Christ, whoever does not come into contact with Christ in an existential manner, can find salvation in an inclusive way. That is to say, he will be saved wherever he follows the voice of his conscience, also inside a certain religious community. It is, however, required that he lives in radical openness for the totality of real world history, as explained before. Whoever affirms reality in its totality, affirms many things inclusively, unconsciously and without detailed knowledge. It is, however, important to note that this attitude can be realized in any reciprocal, mutual way so that we correctly talk about mutual inclusiveness. The most widely known Christian representative of this kind of attitude is Karl Rahner with his conception of an “anonymous Christian.” We cannot allege him for representing a new form of arrogance, and this all the more since he has been called from the opposite side “an anonymous Buddhist” or even an “anonymous atheist”; whoever replies in such a way has understood Rahner correctly. (3) Pluralism: The pluralist attitude tries to avoid the concentration on one religion like Christianity; it thinks in a polycentric way and concedes to all religions that they agree about their goal of salvation and the way leading to it. Also this opinion – something that may not

3 • 1550 Years after Chalcedon

57

be overlooked – is defended by Catholic theologians. As a result the center of acting and thought is changed. In theological terminology, this change takes place from ecclesiocentrism – here the Church (Greek ekklesia) is in the center – through christocentrism (= with Jesus Christ as decisive center) and theocentrism, where God finally is seen at once as creator and savior, to soteriocentrism, where simply the salvific action (Greek sōteria) stands in the middle of one’s concern. The final step is done where – as in Buddhism and in the Chinese religions – God is no explicit point of reference. As can be easily seen, fundamental elements of the Christian creed are neglected in this approach. Christ ends up to be only relative, ultimately only for Christians a binding norm. Often philosophically also ultimate truth remains absolutely inaccessible, as it the case with the ultimate reality which we call “God.” As mentioned before, since western Christians also are children of our time, an increasing number asks why the mediation of universal salvation must be limited to Jesus Christ. The problem grows because the number of Christians is diminishing, who give themselves account of their belief in Jesus the Son of God. As many other people, those Christians, too, do not think anymore that humans are susceptible for an ever growing insight into truth, and give in to the power of relativism. At first sight this relativism seems to be restricted to the power of language. At the end, however, it becomes a relativism concerning the reality as such – also the reality which ultimately we call “God.” Pope Benedict XVI. has repeatedly warned against the danger of relativism threatening today’s society. Nevertheless, we might ask whether really relativism is the most imminent problem which has to be treated here.

“A Third Magisterium” (Aloysius Pieris) For the moment I personally would like to change here the perspective. It is provoked by observations made by theologians from non-western parts of the world. One is Jon Sobrino who invites us to see Jesus with the eyes of the poor, the other is Aloysius Pieris who expressed his uneasiness about the three-part approach offered above and criticized it on behalf of his Asian background and experiences. In an article dealing with interreligious dialogue and theology of religions he writes:13 13 See A. Pieris, Fire and Water. Orbis: Maryknoll, N.Y. 1996; the following pages indicated in the text are quoted from this book.

58

Jesus Christ & the Religions I am embarrassed when I am asked in classrooms and in public forums whether I am an inclusivist or a pluralist. The reason is not that I dismiss the paradigm that gives rise in theses categories as wrong, but that I have found myself gradually appropriating a trend in Asia which adopts a paradigm wherein the three categories mentioned above do not make sense. For our starting point is not the uniqueness of Christ or Christianity, or of any other religion. A fortiori such a concern would never be a hidden agenda in any interreligious dialogue that may engage us. Furthermore, interreligious dialogue itself is not a conscious target pursued as something per se, as it is a luxury which the urgency of the socio-spiritual crisis in Asia would not permit. (pp. 155f )

The Asian paradigm he describes in three overlapping concerns: (1) the acknowledgment of a third magisterium, (2) the liberational thrust that defines Asian theology of religions, and (3) the location of this theology in – what he calls – the Basic Human Communities (see p. 156). Here I like to calI attention to his first concern, which – to my mind – however, is by no means an Asian concern alone, since it intersects with the same concern in other parts of the world as well.14 Actually the problematic which occupies Pieris, Sobrino, and others from the viewpoint of the poor and oppressed, has to be located in the discussion on the authority of the people of God.15 What is being discussed under the heading “consent of the faithful” has to be concretized as “consent of the poor.” Two things have to be remembered: (1) It was a fundamental decision of Vatican II not to continue the deliberations about the Church in the line of Vatican I with the determination of the role of the bishops; the Fathers decided to begin, instead, with the characteristic common to all faithful, namely to be members of the pilgrim people of God. (2) Before repeating the pronouncements 14 In a contribution to the Festschrift honoring Aloysius Pieris at his 70th birthday I made a similar observation regarding his Christological approach; see H. Waldenfels, “Christ Beyond Dogma”? Some Remarks on Aloysius Pieris’ Renewal of Christology, in R. Crusz/M. Fernando/A. Tilakaratne (ed.), Encounters with the Word. Colombo – Aachen – Nürnberg 2004, pp. 209-222. 15 On the authority inside the Church see in more detail H. Waldenfels, Kontextuelle Fundamentaltheologie. Schöningh: Paderborn 4th 2005, pp.506526. The term “third magisterium” is a reminder of the history of the concept “magisterium”; see ibid. 447.

3 • 1550 Years after Chalcedon

59

about papal infallibility, the Constitution on the Church Lumen gentium nr.12 asserts, The holy people of God shares also in Christ’s prophetic office… The whole body of the faithful who have received an anointing which comes from the holy one (see 1 John 2:20.27) cannot be mistaken in belief. It shows this characteristic through the entire people’s supernatural sense of the faith, when, “from the bishops to the last of the faithful,” it manifests a universal consensus in matters of faith and morals…

On the basis of these magisterial statements we have to admit indeed that too little attention is paid to the fact that in the field of doctrine a correlation exists not only between the hierarchical magisterium and theology but also a further correlation between both of them and the faith of the entire people of God. Without entering into a more detailed discussion we have to realize that Asian and Latin American bishops and theologians are more eagerly engaged in applying the ecclesial teaching about the consent of the people of God to the concrete circumstances of the continents as in other parts of the world. By this the so far voiceless poor and oppressed become subjects and partners. At the same time the message of the gospel is seen and heard in a new way; Sobrino declares that he has learnt to see and to listen with the eyes and the ears of the victims. Such a view neither replaces the original preaching of Christ nor the understanding of the teaching of the Church thereafter. But it opens up the possibility to visualize how Christ crucified and risen from death continues to live in men and women who follow Christ and carry their cross today. And it is precisely this way that Christ operates his salvation among us today. Here faith is not a question of intellectual reflection, but a life-forming daily experience. In fact, nowhere is God so close to his creatures as wherever they follow the living Christ in faith, hope and love. In fact, here we are dealing with another mode of dialogue as many people have in mind when they talk about it. In 1 Petr 3:15 Christians are admonished to be always ready to give account of the reason for their hope. People who ask for this account have the right to learn how Christians in our times understand their life as following Christ in his life and death leading to resurrection. Not the intellectual interplay counts but the concrete life practice. Consequently interfaith dialogue is not so much an exchange about doctrinal differences; it rather finds

60

Jesus Christ & the Religions

its verification in practical cooperation where we meet with other people in their need and their search and where they can discover how we answer the question about life and death in view of the living Christ. Often difficulties in the practice of dialogue result from the fact that the unity of theology and spirituality, reflection and practice is broken apart. Frequently alternative positions are extensively discussed and compared, but the question of one’s own position and conviction is treated rather hesitantly. We are, however, invited to explain our position freely and without fear. But this is impossible unless we are deeply rooted in our communion with God through Christ. For this reason we have a brief look at an old proverb “Lex orandi lex credendi” (= “The law of prayer is the law of our belief ”): for once again: Theology is reflection of a living faith, and it is dead where it is not based on living faith anymore.

“Lex orandi – lex credendi” If we like to know the true attitude of the Church toward the salvation of all humans, we have to look only at some texts which are used in the celebration of the holy Eucharist. There we easily learn how the Church herself has renewed and opened her basic attitude regarding humankind. In the prayers for the dead we find the following sequence: Eucharistic Prayer 1: Remember, Lord, those who have died and have gone before us marked with the sign of faith… May these, and all who sleep in Christ, find in your presence light, happiness and peace. Eucharistic Prayer 2: Remember our brothers and sisters who have gone to their rest in the hope of rising again; bring them and all departed into the light of you presence. Eucharistic Prayer 3: Welcome into you kingdom our departed brothers and sisters, and all who have left this world in you friendship.

3 • 1550 Years after Chalcedon

61

Eucharistic Prayer 4: Remember all who have died in the peace of Christ and all the dead whose faith is known to you alone.

Different from the borderlines drawn in the doctrine of predestination, these prayers for the dead are inspired by a posture which releases the dead, more precisely: each single dead person, and surrenders him or her into the hands of a merciful God and his final judgment. We realize how the attitude is widening in the descent from those “who sleep in Christ” to those who “have left this world in your friendship” and finally to those “whose faith is known to you alone.” The language of the prayer directs our view to the true Christian understanding concerning the dead and teaches us very distinctly: The range in which people “sleep in Christ” is evidently wider than the range in which they are “marked with the sign of faith,” baptism and confirmation, the institutional Church. In the language of the Eucharistic Prayers which later on were added, the expectation is even more widening in virtue of the grace of God, but also of a faith which God alone knows. Evidently this faith reaches beyond the explicit faith “in Christ,” however it may become effective. Here we might ask: Is such a prayer really the expression of a feeling of superiority, a will to power and dominion? Is it an expression of arrogance and presumption and of disparagement of other religions? I think the questions call for a negative response, though Christians should be ready to admit that the modern history of missionary activities is to be read in a parallel way to the colonial history and that the latter was to a large extent a history of oppression and violence. Here I like to repeat: More important than stirring up history in its failures and errors is the practical attitude of Christians as it is proposed by the official liturgy of the Church. It is essentially an attitude of letting and giving freely. That is to say: Our own future as well as the future of any one else – be he a faithful Christian or not – we deliver into the hands of God. To him we entrust the judgment over life and death of all people. Actually more than in former days this attitude of confidence relies stronger on God’s mercy and benevolence than on his absolute justice or whatever mankind considers it to be. We have to become aware that in view of the figure of Christ our image of God is gradually changing, too.

62

Jesus Christ & the Religions

Distinctions Returning to our Christian self-understanding we can summarize our provisional results in the following points: (1) In our theoretical debate we have to see, on the one hand, the conviction that Christianity acknowledges the life of Jesus Christ to be a universal way to salvation, that is to say, a way which is open to all members of human history, and, on the other hand, the question whether or not Christ’s salvific action becomes effective for all humankind. For quite a long time the Church pointedly insisted upon “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” (= “Outside the Church there is no salvation”) as an ecclesial doctrine; in the meantime the understanding of the formula is reduced again to its original meaning when it was used rhetorically in sermons.16 Moreover, the sentence itself has been replaced by the phrase “Extra Christum nulla salus,” “Outside of Christ there is no salvation”; this sentence, too, is not to be interpreted in a rigorous way. (2) The notification concerning Jacques Dupuis states in nr. 8: In accordance with Catholic doctrine, it must be held that “whatever the Spirit brings about in human hearts and in the history of peoples, in cultures and religions, serves as preparation for the Gospel (see Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, nr.16).” It is therefore legitimate to maintain that the Holy Spirit accomplishes salvation in non Christians, also through those elements of truth and goodness present in the various religions. To hold however, that these religions, considered as such, are ways of salvation, has no foundation in Catholic theology, also because they contain omissions, insufficiencies and errors regarding fundamental truths about God, man and the world.

The second sentence is noteworthy; for contrary to earlier doctrinal statements concerning the possibility of attaining salvation, salvation is not only ascribed to individuals outside the Church in an abstract way (maybe as “anonymous Christian”); it is rather explicitly connected with “elements of truth and goodness present in the various religions” (in the sense of the second principle of Karl Rahner that religions are “legitimate” as long as some one does not meet with the 16 For a detailed history of the phrase see J. Ratzinger, Volk Gottes. Entwürfe zur Ekklesiologie. Düsseldorf 1969, pp.341-352; also H. Waldenfels, (note 15), pp. 428f.

3 • 1550 Years after Chalcedon

63

message of Christ existentially).17 In other words: It is not simply said that God can lead to faith “those who, through no fault of their own are ignorant of the gospel,” “in ways known to himself ” (Ad gentes nr. 7; cf. Lumen gentium nr. 16), but “the elements of truth and goodness” in other religions are effective for salvation by the power of the Holy Spirit. This statement deserves our attention beyond all others which include the other religions into the process of preparing the road to the gospel. We will discuss later on the notion “ways of salvation.” (3) Moreover, we ought distinguish between the Christian understanding of Christ’s salvific activity, which is in reality effective – not withstanding all alien estimations – and the wide spread conviction that the attainment of salvation outside Christianity could be separated from Christ’s act of salvation. According to the second point the connection of salvation to Christ might be at the most a possible, but by no means an obliging interpretation. Regarding this view we have to see that an interpretation can be accepted or refused. However, the acceptance or refusal of an interpretation is not to be confused with the acceptance or refusal of the existentially important reality of salvation itself. (4) Wherever Jesus in his historical limitations is reduced to a degree that the predicate “is” – “God is truly God and truly man” – becomes invalid in reality and, thus turns out to be only a part of the interpretative horizon in which we try understanding Jesus, Christianity is leveled down and loses its uniqueness. Therefore, Christian theology is well advised to reassure itself of this uniqueness always anew. This reassurance presupposes that we deal with reality. Therefore, it is also not enough to talk about different perspectives and positions as long as it is not clear that reality – we might also say: truth – is not primarily a problem of language, but that it stands in itself. We can also not feel satisfied with the insight that humans never can express the totality of truth in their language adequately. About the access to truth people have to come to a common understanding, here they have even to struggle with each other. Whoever approaches someone else as Christian has to confess himself to the living GOD through JESUS CHRIST, “truly God, truly man,” by the power of grace granted by the SPIRIT of Father and Son. For good reasons Jacques Dupuis has declared himself a supporter of 17 See K. Rahner, Christianity and the Non-Christian Religions, in id., Theological Investigations. Vol. 5, pp. 115-134.

64

Jesus Christ & the Religions

a trinitarian Christology. In Jesus we come to see God’s face – “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father” ( John 14:9); through him and his Spirit we shall be guided “to all truth” ( John 16:13); in virtue of God’s loving self-communication Christians meet others. Only when faith in God, confession to Jesus Christ and life by the power of the Holy Spirit come together, finds the proprium, the characteristic of Christian faith, its true expression. The encounter with others springs from a depth where the question of God is posed, and where it becomes evident from where and what for human persons are living. All this is not primarily a problem of language, but of reality. We might also say: of practice. Unless we do not wish to end up in merely theoretical disputes we have to perceive the warnings of theologians who live in the brutal experiences of the people who have no voice in their poverty, oppression, and the inhumanity of the life. We ask for the truth, but this side of society is part of the truth from which we cannot turn away in an insensitive way. Truth is not so much a problem of speech as of life and deeds. As we read in John 3:21, “whoever lives,” i.e. who practices “the truth comes to the light, so that his works may be clearly seen as done in God.” If there is truly competition between religions it can be decided only on the battle-field of life. There we meet with our questions and our answers, our needs and our solutions. It is worthwhile to turn to history where we find the many faces and languages, the many races and colors, the many cultures and religions, men and women, the rich and the poor. And Christians are confronted with the answer which will be given by the Son of man in his final coming when “all the nations will be assembled before him”: “Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me… what you did not do for one these least ones, you did not do for me.” (Mt 25: 32.40)

Chapter 4 World History

I

Stories in History

f we like to name the wide field where people are used to meet with each other in one word, we have to say: history. Wherever we do it, it might happen that at first westerners do so. For undoubtedly in western thinking the history of humankind and world history is the central place where unity and community on the one hand, plurality and diversity on the other hand comes across. Certainly the modern turn toward history was one of the most significant moments which in consequence contributed to the enrichment and the limitation of human self-realization as well. Dealing with history gave insight into a multitude of facets and particular knowledge on the various levels of world and human society and, at the same time, made one’s own standpoint appear insignificant and often unimportant. And yet, in a time where man is about to conquer the universe by flights to the moon and the Mars, we feel more and more forced into one great fatal community on our mother earth. Whatever we discuss under headings like globalization testifies that not withstanding all diversities of thought and language, culture and society, policy and religion we live in an irrevocable unity. To contemplate this unity in diversity from the angle of religions is the purpose of this chapter. In the foreground we do not concentrate on Christianity so much, but on the plenitude of human faces throughout the world. Edward Schillebeeckx finished his great trilogy with a book which in Dutch was simply titled Mensen als verhaal van God (1989).1 It begins like this: A small boy is said once to have remarked, ‘People are the words with which God tells his story.’ His remark is the theme of this book. 1 For the English edition see E. Schillebeeckx, The Church. The Human Story of God. Crossroad: New York 1990; quote: p. xiii. See also H. Waldenfels, Gott. Auf der Suche nach dem Lebnsgrund. Benno: Leipzig 2nd ed. 1997, pp. 91-98. 108f.

66

Jesus Christ & the Religions

In view of religious options we, too, ask how humans see and pass through their stories. Without claiming that there could not be considered other points of view, we concentrate on five aspects and contemplate history in stories of suffering and search, promise and salvation, and stories of God. It is evident to every one that all these aspects are connected with the history of religion. For we have to consider one point from the outset: We are living in a world which is shaped by the tension between what is and what could be, at least what according to our imagination should be. So all stories reflect in some way or the other the tension between – we might also say – between reality and ideal (or whatever we should think it should be). Moreover, whatever at first glance apparently is an individual story is mostly connected with human society, too, so that the personal story of a single person can never be seen as a story totally isolated from the wider and comprising world history.

Stories of Suffering For most people world history is above all formed by sufferings and stories of suffering. That is true beyond Christianity where in view of the sufferings of the Lord the term “Passion Narrative” is familiar.2 History as such is ambivalent. Remembering past sufferings in the present time can help to overcome, sometimes even to heal them, but many times memory leaves happiness and joy behind. My situation today is seldom such that I could not think of it differently and better. Our life passes between ideals and realities, often severe realities. There is no religion where this insight is not fundamental. This is true, even if the explanations of the perception differ. The total ambivalence of secular life reality is exposed by the Buddha in the words: “Everything is suffering” (see Appendix 2, nr. 2). For him suffering is part of the existence of all living, in some sense it is identical with it. Suffering is here another word for the transitoriness, finitude and contingency of all worldly being. Suffering, therefore, is first of all a burden which people have to carry without being responsible for it. That does not mean that people are not endeavored to do everything to get rid of the burden. The constraint which constitutes the suffering of the world, finds the most articulate expression where people free themselves from death, but death only opens up the door 2 See H. Waldenfels (note 1), pp. 63-72.

4 • World History

67

into a new earthly existence and the living one is dismissed into the cycle of rebirths. That the rank of the new existence is the fruit of the past existence, and that merits and failures are balanced against each other, manifests only that in the Asian understanding of suffering also the moral consciousness awakened. This can be proved in the various Asian religious systems of India and China, but even in European history. For by no means the doctrine of reincarnation is limited to Asia; it counts today also in the western world a remarkable number of adherents, of course, with various kinds of arguments. In Jewish-Christian thinking suffering, evil (in the sense of moral wickedness and physical misfortune), gained a different position. Whereas according to the Creation Narratives of the book of Genesis God’s creation is essentially good, evil in the world results from the moral evil-doing of the first parents which on their part had been motivated by a superhuman power, the devil disguised in the figure of a serpent. This, again, became the root for the history of salvation which climaxed in God’s incarnation in Jesus of Nazareth who saved humankind from sin and death, evil and suffering. In his death Christ immerged into the depth of human wickedness and all comprising sufferings and pains. His suffering and death was pronounced as the redemption of all of us. At the latest since European modern times the Christian message is blocked up to a high degree. We only have to recall three crimes and catastrophes of the 20th century which have been carried out or have been caused by human persons, Europeans and westerners who mostly had been baptized, and can be remembered with the city names: Auschwitz – the murder of Jews and other innocents – Hiroshima – the atomic bomb – and Tchernobyl – the contamination of the earth indicating the environmental menaces we are facing. All this occurred “after Christ”; it cannot be justified by any means, and it is still more difficult to process it inwardly. In Germany for a long time it was asked, “Is it possible to pray again after Auschwitz?” Now it is one of the most significant habits of human nature that at first it does not feel guilty and puts the blame on someone else looking for a scapegoat. Ultimately this might be God who after all created this wicked world and, consequently, is responsible for it. Again, it is quite common that humans excuse themselves by making others responsible for their own wrongdoing, and that of course, mutually. Actually the way to God is finally closed. For what is called in technical terms

68

Jesus Christ & the Religions

“theodicy,” God’s self-justification, failed – with the result that many people solved the contradiction between an apparently good God and a world which is suffering and in many points evil, by deciding that God is non-existent. “God is dead” is not only Nietzsche’s loud exclamation; it is repeated by innumerable people, and – what is more important – they live accordingly. This happens although most of the people do not even ask what kind of God they actually reject, the God of philosophy or the God of Jesus Christ or what kind of God. “God” loses profile, but in the western world most people at least implicitly pretend that all people understand the same when they say “God.” But we might presume that it is in all its vagueness still the “God” of Jewish-Christian monotheism. If this is the case, he simply must fail, if he had ever existed. But what counts: If God is really dead, “theodicy,” the call for God’s justification is being reversed into “anthropodicy,” the call for man’s own self-justification in view of all what happens in our wicked suffering world. In fact anthropodicy is demanded in a world without God. Whatever happens, the responsibility falls back on the humans, their abilities and their weakness. However, where the single person cannot be called to account, new mechanisms of excuse are invented and introduced: environment, milieu, social coercion and control, psychic conditions etc. The search for some excuses finds its limits where the question of suffering changes from morally bad habits (Latin malum morale) to “naturally” negative occurrences (Latin malum physicum), natural catastrophes, floods, earthquakes, epidemics, illness, finally in the experience of death. Humans here face the remains of a self-understanding which is concentrated in man alone. Pure anthropocentrism does not make any sense; it ends in meaninglessness. For whatever we find or invent as arguments or excuses – the situation of suffering remains aporetic. However, because suffering is not only to be accepted and to be endured, human persons search for explanations, but even more for ways out of the suffering: “Deliver us from evil!” In Christianity the “memory of passion” is no longer simply a ritual celebrated in view of Christ crucified. Theologians of Asia and Latin America forced us not to close the eyes in view of the numerous people suffering throughout the world, victims of oppression, starvation, epi-

4 • World History

69

demics, persecution, poverty and other forms of distress. In view of Asia Aloysius Pieris states:3 The poor (the destitute, the dispossessed, the displaced, and the discriminated) who form the bulk of Asian people, plus their specific brand of cosmic religiosity, constitute a school where many Christian activists reeducate themselves in the art of speaking the language of God’s Reign, that is, the language of liberation which God spoke through Jesus. Neither the academic nor the pastoral magisterium is conversant with this evangelical idiom.

Stories of Search Suffering is no timeless experience; it produces reactions in the life of all living beings, especially humans. They can be found in all biographies and evolve in the stories of suffering. Where people have tried to overcome suffering, they are searching, so that the stories of suffering become at once stories of search. This is clear where people in their reflection are not only concerned with the past, but open to them the future. For even if a person likes to overcome his suffering here and now in this moment, he must be interested that his rescue does not last only for the present moment, but that it continues into the future. A first question is: Is a human person able to overcome suffering with his own energy and power, so that he reaches the state of painlessness, or does he have to rely by all means on others and their help? Where human existence as such is sustained by suffering, suffering affects him in his totality, in the unity of spirit, soul and body. In this view extreme bodily pain is equally suffering as the experience of radical meaninglessness which can be passed over in various ways, by using drugs, being immerged in consumptive ways of life or by living simply in the present. When we speak about stories of search, we look for instances of consciously done search as we find it with philosophers, painters and other artists, and all the more for a search which occurs in the course of every day’s life, as e.g. described in the parables of the treasure buried in a field or of the search of fine pearls (cf. Mt 13: 44ff.). The Pol-

3 See A. Pieris, Fire and Water, Orbis: Maryknoll, N.Y. 1996, p.156; also H. Waldenfels (note 1), pp.67-72.

70

Jesus Christ & the Religions

ish philosopher Leszek Kolakowski describes the world of today as follows:4 The world of today is no world in which people live content in their certainty, delighted, and established in their belief or unbelief. It is rather the era of people dislodged, refugees, exiled, strolling and wandering about, of the “eternal Jews” who search for the lost – spiritual or physical – homeland. In their nomadic life nothing is certain anymore, nothing guaranteed, nothing finally determined, nothing unquestionably given – except wandering.

Here again religions have their place. As mentioned before, their real strength evolves where they display their ability to accompany people on the road and open up paths which lead to the overcoming of suffering and the fulfillment of meaning. It is noticeable that in our day people are less interested in religious doctrines than in practical instructions to find a way. We know about the importance of insights, of guidance in meditative methods, of regaining the middle, the center point of life, and of impulses to persevere where the goal remains rather concealed. One point has to be emphasized: Where people fall back on themselves, they remain alone. As long as people are searching, the power of hope is effective in them that sometime they might find and reach the aim of life. On Chinese drawings repeatedly we come across the motive of searching. On a drawing depicted by the famous Japanese Zen master Hakuin (1685-1768) two blind men grope their way over a suspension-bridge which bridges two sides of an abyss – they do it in the hope to reach the other shore. As Kolakowski muses, people can find companionship in searching. Companions might be believers or non-believers – decisive is that they do not give up. What unites people beyond the borderlines of their religious affiliation, ought not to separate them inside the borderlines of their religion. Who honestly and sincerely searches, may count on sym-pathy – the feeling that others suffer together with each other. In Judaism and Christianity we should be aware of the fact that the Greek word for compassion and mercy remind us of the mother’s womb. 4 In: W. Rössner, Der nahe und der ferne Gott. Nichttheologische Texte. Berlin 1981, p. 91.

4 • World History

Watercolor drawing painted by Zen Master Hakuin (1685-1768): “Blind people grope their way over a bridge.”

71

In Mahāyāna Buddhism Kuan-yin ( Jap Kannon) as woman has become the expression of infinite compassion with many eyes and hands. Actually in Buddhism compassion represents the other side of Buddhist perfection which cannot be satisfied with wisdom alone. Com-passion which overflows the unsaved world, and wisdom, the true insight of enlightenment, are two sides of the one experience of fulfillment. However, the search of a way is by no means only an interior quest, but can be and has to be pursued as well on the roads under our feet and by turning to history in its reality. Quite a few people find the aim of their life by listening to the witness of other experienced people. Christians can be convinced that in history often an encounter occurs between those who still grope for their way, and others who already became martyrs, witnesses in the literal sense: men and women who gave witness for their faith unto death by shedding even their blood. We cannot forget Archbishop Oscar Arnulfo Romero who was murdered on March 24, 1980 during his mass, Ignacio Ellacuria SJ and his companions who were brutally killed on November 16, 1989 by members of the Salvadorian army, also the great number of Chinese Christians who suffered in so called educational camps or lived under severe pressures and observation; many of whom have died.

72

Jesus Christ & the Religions

Actually we experience both at the same time, searching and witnessing, often with the same people. Frequently, stories of search continue as stories of companionship between people of different origin who share some stretches of the road. They suffer together, search together and work for solutions together. In Christianity an increasing number of faithful perceive the Church as an assembly of companions on the road following Christ, and thus Christian existence turns into a kind of companionship. However, because the following of Christ means to live and to realize always in concrete situations of real history, also Christology as reflection on Jesus Christ and his significance in history has to become a new invitation to a renewed Christopractise. Christology cannot limit itself to a speculative reflection on and understanding of God’s incarnation and the constitution of Jesus Christ being “truly God and truly man.” It has to struggle for the restoration for the “way of Christ” realized in the life practice of his followers today. In this sense Christology itself has to become a “searching Christology.”

Stories of Promise Where searching persons meet with witnesses, it comes to an encounter of those who ask, and those who answer, and a new companionship is formed. Witnesses live a little bit ahead of those who simply search; this results from the fact that – in Jewish-Christian terms – witnesses – martyrs – are living from a promise which opens up the present for a positive future. In promises, as we understand them here, God gives his word that in all catastrophes we can expect a positive, favorable end. Even if they do not use the word, also other religions live from promises. For searching is only meaningful, if there is at least implicitly a horizon of expectation that there is meaning to everything and that we reach fulfillment. In this sense we speak about promises in a wide sense. There is something else connected with the promise or with promises. Whereas searching essentially implies an active doing from the human side, the emphasis in promise is different. In this case man is, first of all, somebody who is addressed by someone else, and thus he is a person who receives. Different from the situation of active doing we can speak of “undergoing,” in a way of a certain form of passivity. However, here “passivity” does not imply an unequivocally negative conno-

4 • World History

73

tation. Therefore, it is not to be mistaken for the suffering we were dealing with before. In Christian mysticism it is not strange to speak about “bearing God” (see in German “Gott-Leiden” [A.M.Haas]).5 Promise is essentially an opening up of what is ahead to us. Here we have to keep in mind the distinction between a future which is mostly constructed and shaped by human work, and a future which is approaching us, and which we fear and hope for – we speak about “advent.” To fear and to hope for – that is to say: Whatever people are waiting for is of different character; it might be blissful or condemning. Actually in most religions the future expectations are by no means only filled positively. Even in modern Christian history the relation of performance and reward was quite popular in regard to future expectations. Evil-doers had to expect the severe fate of being condemned; to doers of good the gates of paradise were opened. Pictures of heaven and hell were by no means restricted to medieval paintings of the final judgment; they are also part of Asian iconography. The avoidance of a conclusive decision which we find in the process of reincarnation was mentioned before. Another attempt to dismiss all future prognostic is to be realized where people believe that everything is over with death. But even in those days when people think that they are permitted to dispose about everything, even about their own life, the question what comes after death does not cease. Therefore, there are the questions about this side and yonder side, finite and infinite. Questions like these have their own history. For yonder, infinite, eternity belong to all religions which offer an all-comprising frame of life for all human existence. However, the religions do not reply to these questions in the same way. In the most popular view we are on the road as long as we live – a goal in front of us. But this goal remains and is given to us only as a promise. Jürgen Moltmann6 has introduced the history of the Jews as a story of promise where its fulfillment included the dissolution of the search. Consequently, for quite a long time promise and fulfillment were the two pillars of the fundamental scheme in which Christians considered also the relationship between the Old and New Testament. Where, however, in the New Testament the speech about promise was 5 See A.M. Haas, Gottleiden – Gottlieben. Insel: Frankfurt 1989 6 See J. Moltmann, Theology of Hope. Harper & Row: New York 1967.

74

Jesus Christ & the Religions

filled with the announcement of the kingdom of God, something new sprang up. The more Jesus connected the arrival of the kingdom with his own person, the stronger became the tension between “already (present)” and “not yet (present).” In recent times this tension has been made a point of debate again with good reasons. Jon Sobrino – as others before him – has called attention to the fact that in early Christianity the content of Christ’s preaching, the announcement of the kingdom of God almost disappeared. It is a matter of fact that already in the letters of St. Paul the term lost its decisive role. In Christ the kingdom had arrived. Consequently full attention focused on the person of Christ, his coming, his existence, later on his constitution, his intimate connection with God the Father, finally the language and the terminologies in which all this finds an appropriate expression. The Church Fathers and the Fathers of the early councils found in Greek terminologies ways of bridging the gaps of understanding. All this was helpful, but to some sense we have to admit that Christ’s concrete message of the kingdom of God fell into oblivion. The new awareness of the poor in today’s world evokes again the question of the kingdom of God.7 Where the kingdom in view of Jesus of Nazareth is at once understood as present and as coming in the future, two extremes come into view as soon as we try to dissolve the two sides of the tension. (1) Where the promise is taken as being fulfilled merely in the future, the message of the kingdom will be reduced to mere consolation. The world is a “vale of tears,” is only preliminary; we have to suffer through it, but ultimately cannot change it. The message becomes timeless and has no bearing on the concrete history and its realities. We have to ask ourselves to what extent certain forms of religious spirituality, Christian spirituality included, are shaped by this timeless attitude so that it prepares people only for a life to come but not for an liberating engagement here on earth. In fact for a long time spiritual life was an invitation to a radical contempt of the world and a complete retirement from it. (2) Where, however, the promise is been understood as already fulfilled in the present and that the kingdom of God has come, it becomes a strong invitation to cooperate that it will be fully realized here and now and that it becomes visible on the various fields of life on which 7 See in more detail J. Sobrino, Christ the Liberator. Orbis: Maryknoll, N.Y. 2001.

4 • World History

75

it should appear – in overcoming poverty and oppression, in realizing justice, truth, solidarity and peace – so that it fits the basic demands in human life and society. In this case not withdrawal from, but a turning to the world is called for. That this view does not separate Christians and other believers can be gathered from the fact that a modern slogan about road and goal claims: “The road is the goal.” Or in the words of India and of Buddhism: “Samsāra is Nirvāna.” Whereas samsāra is the perishable world, nirvāna is the state of painlessness and deathlessness which is reached where all kind of attachments are overcome. In order to reach this state, man has not to die physically, as also in Christianity redemption is not attained at the best in death, but as soon as a person is immerged into the death of Christ by baptism and is raised with him from the dead (see Rom 6:1-11). What the togetherness of samsāra and nirvāna signifies in the light of Christian baptismal understanding, and vice versa what dying with Christ in baptism truly means to Asian-Hindu-Buddhist thought, has hardly been considered. In any case Hindus, Buddhists and Christians and the adherents of other religions as well, wherever they live on the road of following the inner call und try to live accordingly in the practice of life, they walk in the truth, even if they do not know all about the preliminaries of their lives in theory. Here also the great nearness which mystics of the various religions have felt for each other is grounded. We also understand that religious persons more and more yearn for an exchange of experiences and impulses. In other words, they ask: What are concretely the promises by which people shape their way of life? And what are the actions to which promises invite us?

Stories of Salvation The content of promises can be described in terms like happiness and harmony, light and insight, redemption, liberation and freedom, peace and community, painlessness, healing, salvation and love. Terms like these, sometimes also metaphors, we find in the various religions with different accents and strong points. Certainly we should not conceal that many blissful imaginations had been darkened by the threats of the final judgment and the possibility of ultimate failure; they ought not to be simply suppressed even today. We are living in hope, not in knowledge and certainty, and we do not dispose about what will come.

76

Jesus Christ & the Religions

Therefore, everywhere people ask: “What shall I do so that I succeed with my life?” In German the words for “luck” (= Glueck) and “to succeed’ (= gluecken) come from the same root. Whoever had the chance to celebrate Chinese New Year, will remember that wherever he goes, he will come across one pictorial symbol: the pictograph for “happiness” = fu in its various combinations: success, luck, fortune, happiness – all of these are loosely interconnected. In the “Far East” – as we westerners use to call it, although also this is a question of perspective – people yearn for peace which appears where the polarity of yin and yang is balanced in harmony and the hearts of people are open for each other. And yet, what unites all people in desire and effort might differ in different tribes and nations, cultures and religions, in their startingpoint and their history. When today human persons happily discover many common points between the different peoples from different re-

4 • World History

77

gions and races, this implies, first and for all, that even those who differ in thought, speech and language, in appearance and conduct, are nevertheless human beings. And we must sadly admit that what for us is a matter of fact, had to be learnt in the era of discoveries by Europeans. The conquerors of that time did by no means treat the inhabitants of the newly discovered American countries as human beings since they were neither white nor baptized. If all that is no question anymore for us, and we know that in all our diversities we live in the one boat of human race, we still are allowed to ask where all the diversities come from? What causes the otherness between us? Wherever we compare, we tend, first, to think in terms of putting above and below which leads to a ranking of superior and inferior, and, secondly, we are inclined to estimate one’s own qualitatively higher and better than that of others. This again often produces a sense of superiority and dominion. For many centuries wars were the instrument to enlarge the zone of influence and might; consequently other countries were conquered and subjected by force. Today’s peace research is focused on exploring the motives of wars and violence and on developing methods of how to handle conflicts; one section of research is concerned with religions as causes for conflicts and wars and their contribution to peace, too. Considering the dark sides of history we may even ask: To what extent are religions really ways for guiding and bringing humans to happiness? How far do they liberate them from suffering, and lead them to healing and salvation? In what sense are they able to make them free in a comprehensive manner? Christians including the official Church cannot but concede that terms like “salvation” and “invitation to salvation” are also used by others. For the desire of happiness and the promise of ways guiding to happiness and salvation leads beyond the realm of Christian influence. How the Christian understanding of the history of salvation is related to the promises of salvation found in other religions, is still being discussed. Rather harshly the notification about Jacques Dupuis n.8 stated that the assertion that other religions, “considered as such, are ways of salvation, has no foundation in Catholic theology.” Here we have to distinguish: It is true, Catholic theology may in view of its self-estimation conclude that salvation attained in other religions, too, is objectively related to the saving action of Jesus Christ. However, that does not mean that other religions from their self-estimation are prohibited

78

Jesus Christ & the Religions

to offer themselves as ways of salvation or ways leading to salvation. Theology should even less prohibit this conviction, since according to nr.8 the Holy Spirit efforts salvation through elements of truth and goodness which are present in other religions. Quarreling whether different from the salvation obtained by Jesus Christ and independent from him other ways of salvation exist, is of less importance than the common conviction that all religions contain rays of truth and goodness and a sense of the “holy” which can be and actually is instrumental for the attainment of divine salvation. Ultimately it does not matter what interpretations say, but only that full salvation is given by God’s grace, not withstanding the necessary cooperation from human side. Moreover, the radical and total self-communication of God in Jesus Christ which Christians believe in will persist even if people only know about and believe in the gift of salvation and liberation, but not about the ultimate foundation of God’s salvific revelation. That also other religions intend to lead on ways of salvation and thus become “ways of salvation,” cannot be contested by Christians and should not become a cause of dispute any longer. With good reasons Gerhard Gäde interprets the first two verses of the letter to the Hebrews in a broader sense.8 When the author of the letter writes: In times past, God spoke in partial and various ways to our ancestors through the prophets; in these days, he spoke to us through a son, whom he made heir of all things and through whom he created the universe,

he certainly was thinking about the Jews who were living in the time before Christ. These phrases, however, Gäde is inclined to understand with regard to the entire history of religions. Actually – analogously to the prologue of the Gospel of John – God’s word is nothing but the one Word, the Logos which “became flesh and made his dwelling among us” ( John 1:14): Many times and in diverse ways – in fact, so often and in so diverse ways, as men exist who are full of hope and confidence, they speak of God and testify the promise of eternal life, God’s word is coming to men. And yet, it is only one word. The beginning of the letter to the Hebrews by no means intends to make the speaking “through 8 See G. Gäde, Viele Religionen – ein Wort. Bertelsmann: Gütersloh 1998; quote p. 360.

4 • World History

79

the son” a further link in a long and maybe preliminary speech. God has rather spoken through the one who is “the refulgence of his glory and the very imprint of his being” (Hebr 1:3).

In addition, regarding the missionary announcement we might ask: Who can prevent people from talking about their happiness and their conviction that God has opened the way to salvation for all people? With reference to the “one mediator between God and the human race, Christ Jesus, himself human” in 1 Tim 2:3ff it is said, that it “is good and pleasing to God our savior who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth.” I ask again: Who will prevent Christians from speaking frankly about their happiness, all the more so when they want to share it with all other people? And the same counts conversely. Who wishes to prevent people of other faiths from speaking about their way to liberation and fulfillment? We might well ask ourselves whether we necessarily have to speak about the uniqueness of God’s unequaled self-communication in Jesus of Nazareth, so that all people who do not believe in Christ feel humiliated and at the end are excluded from salvation. I personally am convinced that all this is unnecessary and that the argumentation in the notification does not reach far enough. Moreover, as mentioned before, “salvation” is not originally a Christian term. Its meaning is less clear than we should presuppose for a word so frequently used. Christians surely have to examine their understanding of it; for it does not bring us any further if we level down the understanding of salvation. However, before we dispute the good will of other people and their basic insight that grace and salvation is also offered to them, we should watch out for the traces of openness for the Deus semper minor, semper maior, for God who makes himself little for us and, in spite of it, remains the greater God above all our imagination. In fact, he is working also in people who have not joined the Church and live in other religions. However, who is this God – for us Christians and for those who do not believe in Christ?

Stories of God Finally we may well ask: Are not all stories of humans after all stories of God? And do not all religions, after all, speak about the same God? And religions “without God” do they really exist? Answers to those questions differ as ever.

80

Jesus Christ & the Religions

To mention it in advance: Religious people of the western world tend to see the same God working everywhere. This results from the fact that the Jewish God is the same whom Christians adore, and that the God of Islam – Allah – is absolutely God as such. In these replies we are not dealing with images of God, but with his reality. The alternative to the affirmation of God are not other images or fictions but is the denial of God, radical atheism. What is being said regarding the three Abrahamic religions, however, cannot be simply transferred to all other religions. This becomes plain as soon as we look more exactly what “stories of God” imply. In fact, the Jewish Bible with all reflections is basically a book of great narratives, of history and stories, and though in many parts it narrates from the encounter of humans with God, it even more relates about the dealings of God with humans. For it is astounding that God speaks with man at all, that dialogues between God and humans occur, and that God interferes in history, directs it or abandons it in ways recognizable to man. World history turns out be a drama performed between God and humankind. Since humans are provided with knowledge and freedom, intellect and free will, human life is essentially shaped by the acceptance or refusal of God’s guidance. Consequently God’s reactions are described in both Testaments in a way that he shows himself not unconcerned. He becomes angry, where man turns away from him, he courts him like a lover, he displays all his love and at the end he is merciful and ready to forgive. The story continues in the New Testament where it gets a new accent by the fact that God so distant and at once so close in his Incarnation becomes part of his creation and member of the human race – the infinite in the finitude of the man Jesus. That the event determines the entire history of humankind does not need to be argued again, wherever it is faithfully accepted. But we have to insist on it in a time where an increasing number even of Christians, above all intellectuals like John Hick tend to discard the importance of the Incarnation of God. Of course, people who do not accept the Christian message of Jesus Christ have to tell their own stories. And yet, even then questions which are common to all people are awaiting their reply. Here we have to ask: Does God appear in the other stories of humans, or what takes his place when it comes to the fundamental ques-

4 • World History

81

tions of life?9 Where do they see the foundation of life, where its aim? We cannot, of course, repeat the numerous stories with and about God which we find in history. It suffices to know that these stories exist. A rough division can be made by starting off with stories about the personal God, not withstanding that the concept of person has its own history. That Jews, Christians and Moslems deal with a personal, Christians even with the triune God, follows from the fact that God made possible a dialogue between him and humans by calling and determining them to human thought, speech and action. In a way even early history reminds us that there have been times and places where evidently gods (in plural) were working. Whether speaking about many gods is to be understood in the sense that people were convinced about the real existence of many gods or that the plurality of gods is rather to be taken as expression of God’s multiformity and variety and his inexhaustible plenitude can remain unanswered. However, wherever God’s personal figure is nothing but an anthropomorphous representation, and as the inaccessible he is only the holy and divine one and an impersonal entity, speaking about God’s words and even about the Word of God becomes powerless. For the human word as such is not God’s word. It makes only sense to talk about God’s word, when the word as such refers to God himself. As Christians we enter here the inner life of God where we speak about the “triune God.” In other words: In the real and full sense we can speak about the word of God only where we speak about the triune God. Where man strives beyond himself – and this can happen by turning inwardly or outwardly to history – at first, silence becomes the infinite ocean which carries or in which man perishes and becomes extinct. Here man cannot withdraw himself because what surrounds him temporarily and spatially is always greater than he is; opposite to the always greater he finally is absolutely powerless. If this silent ocean should be able to speak, it can happen only by virtue of God’s initiative. Maybe many Christians are so accustomed to the divine initiative that they are not surprised and astonished anymore and consider God’s speaking so much a matter of fact that they conclude that God must have spoken in other religions as well or that people are thinking

9 See for Islam and Buddhism my considerations in H. Waldenfels (note 1), pp. 36-39. 54ff. 73-86.

82

Jesus Christ & the Religions

this way, too. In fact, for too long a time the term “revelation” has been used in an inflationary manner.10 A story of God appears rather limited where on the one hand, God remains from his side totally taciturn and inaccessible, and this is affirmed, on the other hand, people are not interested anymore in the message of God’s self-communication and self-revelation. This also is the case where God as such is considered to be “the Real” ( John Hick),11 but the “many names” are only human approximations which at the end might neither touch upon him nor reach his essence. Whoever argues this way, runs the great risk that he will miss the true Christian self-understanding so that he cannot speak any longer in the name of the Christian fellowship. We also have to pay attention to the religions and situations where God apparently is non-existent. According to Vatican II Buddhism is a fascinating movement in which people live religiously although God is not mentioned at all. However, there are some observations which make it meaningful to consider Buddhism a religion: Buddha’s main concern was the radical liberation of people from the burden of suffering, finally from the cycle of reincarnations. Everyone who is ready to follow him can prepare himself for liberation. In his enlightenment the Enlightened One demonstrates that seeing and liberty, overcoming blindness and any form of attachment is possible for every person. The end-point, however, is ultimately nameless, nothing which could induce new attachments. As a matter of fact, today some people discuss the question whether while speaking about “True Mind,” “Buddhahood” and “Buddha nature” Buddhists do not approach the point where other believers speak about God – I only mention, but do not decide it here.12 The history of religions, especially of Buddhism, has not reached its end because evidently from the sum of the histories of each single religion originated one history of religions – with and against each other – and this history is by no means completed. There are stories of oppression, syncretism, religious wars, in the meantime also of dialogues. 10 See again Chapter 2 note 12 with J. Sobrino’s remarks on “unveiling experiences.” 11 See J. Hick, God has Many Names. Westminster: Philadelphia 1982. 12 See in more detail H. Waldenfels, Buddhist Challenge to Christianity. Dharmaram Publications: Bangalore 2004.

4 • World History

83

The question is whether in this situation self-deception or a false form of self-abnegation is helpful. Quite a few Christians are inclined to replace their faith in Christ by a rather unqualified faith in God. However, a merely pluralist view which ends up in simply juxtaposing all religious options side by side is fundamentally un-dialogical, because for the sake of peace they own to everyone that they are right and leave the question of truth alone. As said before, in the long run it will not work. All religions speak about truth whereby it does not matter whether they modestly speak about fragmentary knowledge or – in the mood of exaggerated self-consciousness – of the fullness of truth. In the way that the stories of God are unfinished, also the history of finding truth did by no means reach its end; we are rather amidst a continuous process of searching and finding. A human person has to know and to acknowledge two things: (1) Every person is able to find truth; therefore, he should be ready and concerned to come to truth. (2) There are many instances of truth which are not to be put in question; they determine human life and, therefore, oblige him to live accordingly. Radical selflessness, radical letting-oneself-loose and living from the true Self which appears where we overcome our little egoistic self describe the compass in which humans might discover their groundless ground in the totally-Other. Maybe the loud voice of rejoice by which humans praise God is less distant from the silent wonder without invocation of God’s name than it may appear to people on behalf of their lack of imagination and their partial convictions. I would like to conclude with a story which Aloysius Pieris recounted. It refers to an experience he made with someone from an Buddhist-Marxist background who some months later died by the hand of a Sinhala extremist. As participant of a seminar he related his earlier view of the Bible which for him was a fairy tale. But then Pieris continues:13 But he pointed out that, in their common struggle and the common reflections which each had on the other’s religious literature, and in the sharing we had at that seminar, he discovered that the concept of “God” which motivates Christians to liberationist activity is radically different from the concept of God which the Buddha is reported in the Pali scriptures to have rejected as absurd and chime13 See A. Pieris (note 3), p. 159.

84

Jesus Christ & the Religions rical. As a Marxist coming from a Buddhist background, he could not accept the idea of God, but “if I ever have to believe in a God, this is the only one worth believing in,” he confessed. I responded: “To believe in any other god, as most Christians do, is idolatry.” “This is the first time I have heard of a God who has made a defense pact with the oppressed,” he declared. And the Christian participants came to realize that what is unique about their religion is that Jesus whom they follow is the pact! We further realized that we Christians tend, unfortunately, to duplicate the institutional aspects of other religions in Asia and thus compete with them rather than preach and practice that which is our unique mission

Chapter 5 Dialogue and Profession

H

The Miracle of Language

istory consists of many facets and lives on by the multitude of stories. Stories, however, have to be narrated by those who have experienced them. Where people meet one another by exchanging stories and narratives, they make a twofold experience: On the one hand, it is wonderful that people can listen to and understand each other. On the other hand, it is painful when people do not understand each other and do not have any possibility to come to an understanding. For both there are good reasons. At first sight both – understanding and non-understanding – have to do with the miracle of language, the human ability to speak. It is a characteristic of being human that they can communicate with each other in speech. Even if a person because of illness is unable to speak, there are analogous means of communication which can be learnt. However, even persons who can speak often cannot understand because there are many languages, and not all people speak the same language. Everyone has his mother tongue; all other languages are, at first, foreign languages. In the Bible the situation of languages has been explained in two great narratives. When the people of Babel tried to become like God and to seize his power by building a tower, God demolished the tower and confused the language of the people, “so that one will not understand what another says” (Gen 11:7). Here the knowledge of language is a way to the tree of knowledge by which man becomes like God. Conversely in Jerusalem after the resurrection of Christ a great miracle of language happened on Pentecost; all people present were amazed while listening to Peter, “because each one heard them speaking in his own language.” They asked: “Then how does each of us hear them in his own native language?... We hear them speaking in our own tongues of the mighty acts of God.” (Acts 2:6ff.11) In virtue of the Holy Spirit all present were able to understand. If we transfer it into our own deliberation, we may well say: “Trans-lation” occurred.

86

Jesus Christ & the Religions

“Trans-lation” Here we become aware of another side of human speech: Humans are able to learn how to listen and to speak, even how to read and to write in foreign languages, in short how to communicate with one another in foreign tongues. We speak about “trans-lation,” literally “to carry over, to pass over, to cross, to bridge.” This ability proves that foreign languages do not suspend the unity of human race. In other words: Different languages do not constitute different species of animals. Neither language nor color nor race nor gender nor religion abolishes the unity of being human. It rather belongs to our being human that beyond the features of finitude – place and time, language, race and culture, and also religion – a human being by his nature is open to other things and other persons, for more and for anything new. He is even filled with desire for the boundless and the infinite. All this happens as soon as someone leaves his own place and moves to the place of someone else. The ability of changing places is also one reason that humans after passing through numerous places wish to reach one place from where they – maybe with the eyes of God – are able to survey everything. A first chance, by which the desire for more can be fulfilled, is given with what we call “translation.” In fact, the term as we daily use it, seems to be a technical term. As already indicated, it implies more than that. Intellectually and so with whole their being, in all the finitude of their ego, humans are given the possibility to move – as it were crossing a river – to the shore of others and thus to pass over to the other shore. In Buddhism the idea got a high impact in the image of Little and Great Vehicle. That a passing-over is not easy and needs pains and efforts is well-known to anyone who tries to learn a new language. Whoever knows something about foreign languages and has not only the facility to read, but to speak, also knows about the limitations of translations. Not everything can be translated adequately; consequently not everything is fully comprehensible. Who intends the latter, has to learn – as mentioned before – to put oneself in the viewpoint of the other and to accept it and to perceive things from different perspectives. By so doing generally one’s own point of view is relativized. Linguistic formulations will be noticed in their deficiencies, their need for supplement or even replacement. In the era of pluralism the

5 • Dialogue & Profession

87

danger arises that at the end everything is basically relativized, and apparently nothing remains an absolute and universal value. Although it gets more and more difficult to determine the heart of the matter or the center of everything, for the sake of the unity of human race a central point which is valid for all people and which everybody has to respect, is needed by all means. The question is whether this point can still be expressed or ultimately escapes all linguistic expressions so that it can be asserted only in merely negative terms, that is to say, in assertions which mark almost an empty space which cannot be filled by human efforts.1 Or are at the end those people right, as we find them in many religions and also among the believers in Jesus Christ, who claim that humans from their side are not enabled to say what the core of the matter is, but that they are convinced that the heart or the center of everything is able to communicate itself in a word? Jews, Christians and Moslems and other believers deduce their language faculties from the creator of the universe; they believe that he is not a silent divinity, but a speaking God. They believe: Because God speaks in words, he is the Word as such and enables humans to reply. From word and response grows what we call “responsibility,” which is more distinctly expressed in the sequence of German terms Wort –> Ant-wort –> Ver-ant-wort-ung –> Ver-ant-wort-lichkeit.

Responsibility is an attitude growing from our ability to respond to words spoken by someone else. And the sequence of word and response and the ability of exchanging words is one of the greatest gifts given to us. Unfortunately the basic context of the western term “responsibility” has fallen more and more into oblivion.

Dialogue In these days “dialogue” has become a key-word. The term counts for the observation that humankind does not only possess language, but that humans are essentially “conversation”; in German we say “Gespräch,” whereby the prefix “Ge-“ connected with a noun forms a collective in which a plurality is gathered as in “Gespräch” which consists in a collective of speech actions and leads to an exchange of speech. Thus humans might be even defined as beings who essentially are existent by 1 See Brhadaranyaka Upanishads III, 9.26 (Appendix 2, nr.1); Laotse, Tao Te Ching ch. 1 and ch. 11 (Appendix 2, nr. 3).

88

Jesus Christ & the Religions

the exchange of words and who even are constituted in their being by togetherness in speaking. Often two things are overlooked, though: (1) Dialogue is stressed especially where humans are being taken serious in their personality and their individual dignity. It does not make sense to talk about inter-personality and inter-subjectivity as long as humans are not respected as human subjects and human persons. Unfortunately, what in the western world is widely considered a matter of fact cannot be taken for granted for all other cultural regions. If dialogue is supposed to be more than an instrument of peaceful conduct, it must be understood as the central way of human togetherness, in the sense that the other is respected as a human person and as a subject. Therefore, westerners are not only to discuss the question of human rights and dignity in general; they have to bring up the questions in other cultural regions, also in Asia, in China etc. and ask very concretely for their understanding of the single person. That the question of “person” is a grave problem wherever we deal with the beginning and the end of human life also in our own hemisphere should not be passed over in silence. (2) Dialogue attains a place of central importance for human togetherness where weltanschauung and religions assign to language a special place. That is in no cultural and religious ambient so much the case as in Judaism and Christianity. This insight is not to be understood simply in the sense of superiority, even if for a long time the western world gave that impression. However, it offers an occasion to examine mutually the way of human encounters and behavior. The fact that the western world also passes through a process of learning, can be gathered from the fact that we live in the post-Cartesian and also the post-secular time. For many centuries westerners have been living by the short formula attributed to the French philosopher Renė Descartes (1596-1650) “Cogito ergo sum,” “I think, therefore I am”; since then the emphasis put on the human ego determines human consciousness. Only toward the end of the 20th century the situation changed, and more attention was given to the other and strange. In fact, increasingly the own consciousness was thought from the side of the other, almost in the sense of “You are, therefore I am.” Jewish thinkers like Martin Buber (1878-1965), Franz Rosenzweig (1886-1929) and lately Emmanuel Levinas (*1906) changed western thought toward “you –> I –> we.”

5 • Dialogue & Profession

89

The concept “person” lost its one-sided stress upon individuality and gained as a second essential characteristic relationality – innerwordly, inter-human and transcendent. In Christian theology new attention was paid to the Trinitarian understanding of God. At the end the emphasis upon the relational element in the concept of person led to the point that those who so far defined person above all as individual being, had to reformulate their understanding. This will be necessary especially in the dialogue with Asians, but also in the western discussion of the human subject. As soon as we introduce the points mentioned into the dialogue of religions, the other religions are being asked for their anthropological arguments and premises, and they are invited to reconsider the basic elements of dialogical behavior. Unfortunately doubts against a still prevalent western and Christian claim of absolutism and superiority are existent as before, which impedes a true competition. Actually it does not help much if we work more with insinuations and suspicions and not with clear arguments. This applies also to the dealing with basic convictions of belief which should be discussed without agitation, calmly and with equanimity. It is basic for a true dialogue that all partners be treated as equals in that they are all subjects. In being human as such there is neither hierarchy nor any other kind of rank. On the long run content of a dialogue, however, is not dialogue itself. In the case of formal dialogues it is meaningful to come to an agreement about concrete procedures and conditions, about purpose and topics and similar points beforehand. But usually in the process of dialogue the participants are less concerned with themselves but with a third element: the project in mind, the problem to be solved, the questions which call for an answer in theory or practice. In this sense people of different origin are struggling with the great existential problems like the beginning and end of the universe, the meaning of humanity, concretely also with poverty and the just distribution of the goods of the earth, the balance between ecology and economy, with justice and peace, the overcoming of conflicts, the ethically responsible behavior regarding human life, its begin and an end worthy of a human being, with the limits of human disposal, finally with what is totally beyond human disposal, what after all many call “God.” In their anthropology all religions return to their origin. As a religious origin it is not simply historical; for it refers also to the inex-

90

Jesus Christ & the Religions

pressible core, to the “empty space” or – in our language – to “God.” Interfaith dialogue is essentially grounded in human experiences – again in Christian terms – with God, in the presence of his Spirit in our life and in the world. Therefore, we talk about “spiritual experiences” and connect dialogue with living spirituality. However, by talking about spiritual experience we are not to overlook that all our experiences occur as bodily experiences, in history and in world, not isolated from the reality we are living in every day.

Profession A person, who talks about his spiritual experiences, becomes a “confessor” or a witness of faith. If interreligious dialogue is not to end up in a mere exchange of information, it calls for a profession of one’s belief. That is the case because people who approach each other with an open and sincere heart, cannot pass over their most precious good in silence. Who believes that he should conceal the most precious he possesses, is either egoistic or unwilling to share, or he himself is not convinced. Then he has to examine his attitude. I remember one of my most impressive experiences in India, the visit of a Sikh temple in Bangalore. The priest showed us around on a Sunday morning and explained in detail the altar room, the holy book, the place of celebration. Before he dismissed us at the door, he put some glutinous mass into our hands from a little vessel. When I hesitated and did not know how to react, my Catholic companion said: “It is prasad.” The word means “God’s grace and benevolence.” The gift came from the ritual in the morning. In a way the priest included us in the prayer he had offered in the morning. It was a kind of communion he shared with us by letting us participate in the most precious he had to give and which was important for him. Really, it was a sharing. Recalling this experience I am sure that some Asians who attended my Sunday mass in Bonn and stood in front of me with open hands before communion, understood the sermon as an announcement of prasad so that as a matter of fact they felt invited and participated in a sharing of what for Christians is most valuable and precious. Unfortunately historical and rational thinking in the western world frequently covers the Christian profession like a frost. As mentioned before, one root of the ecclesial crisis is the rift between theological reflection and hermeneutical endeavor on the one hand, and religious

5 • Dialogue & Profession

91

exercises, sacramental and other devotions and life practice on the other hand. Wherever religion is practiced without reflection, it is endangered by fundamentalism. However, wherever theology is done without practice, there is the tendency that theology turns into a Christian science of religion where the Christian message neither determines one’s standpoint nor leads to an adequate engagement any further. Occasionally Christian participants in interfaith dialogues and actions have to put up with being asked about their own religious commitments, as, for instance, westerners involved in actions in the Middle East have related recently. Another question connected with the case of truly existential involvement is concerned with the possibility of conversion.

Conversion For all religions it is essential that they bring to a world full of sufferings and pains, catastrophes and guilt a message of liberation and reconciliation, and that they show ways how people can find their way out and even go with them the way. Often the plurality of such messages leads – as in the dispute of the disciples about the first places in the kingdom which Jesus announced (see Mk 9:33-37par) – to the dispute about the validity of the messages. Here, however, I would like to call attention to the fact that the various ways of passing-over to other points of view, the use of different languages etc. include an even more important possibility: the existential change into another religion, what we call “conversion.” We may even say that the existential side of religion should obtain greater preference compared with the objective findings in the history of religion and religions. Although these findings have their impact on the official and public negotiations between the representatives of religions, they are subordinate when it comes to the questions of personal existence. “Conversion” – from Latin conversio = turn, Greek metanoia = turn of thinking, thinking differently, anew – is, first of all, the expression of a radical change of one’s standpoint or point of view. Converts leave behind – at least externally – their former standpoint and choose another one which becomes for them normative. The change might be motivated differently. The simplest case is given where someone declares after a long time of quest and search: Up to now I did not know where I stand and what I believe; now I have found my standpoint

92

Jesus Christ & the Religions

in a new way of life. There are other conversions where the convert is certain to have a conviction, but at once gets the impression that by converting he does not give up his former point of view but is only radicalizing it. Thus quite a few people who convert from Christianity to Islam think that in Islam they finally converted completely to God because only a Moslem is ready to let God be God. They change – as they think – from anthropocentrism to true theocentrism because God is the unique and only center of their life and of everything. Such a change in one’s past attitude may occur where the Incarnation of God is denied, or where God’s personality is refused because thus apparently all anthropomorphous characteristics are taken from God and he is not anymore a superhuman being with human features. In fact, here the Divine or – in the words of John Hick, one of the leading figures of the pluralist theory, – “the Real” appears to be superior to the personal God. It is easily understood as long as the concept of person is still primarily interpreted as individuality, and individuality is more considered in its limitations than in its uniqueness. Transferred to the person of Jesus, he is above all seen in his limited humanity, not in his infinite divinity. In a new formula, a distinction is made between totus Deus, which applies to Jesus who – in all his limitations – is totally God, and totum Dei, the totality of God which has to surpass even the limits of totus Deus. Conversions can be, first, processes of deepening the past way of life; secondly, processes of removal from a former way of life combined with an approach to a new foundation and meaning of life. Finally, they can be simply discoveries on the way of life which lead to new orientations and a fundamental orientation of life as such. In the meantime it is part of human conduct that people select from the supply offered by various religions whatever apparently fits their life. As mentioned before, historical facts of the history of religions become less important than the fascination of personalities like Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King, the popes John XXIII and John Paul II or the Dalai Lama. It is interesting to note that for Mahatma Gandhi the historicity of Jesus played a secondary role. Indeed the Sermon of the Mount was so impressive for him that it did not matter whether Jesus had lived or not, if only he had proclaimed the words ascribed to him.

5 • Dialogue & Profession

93

Competition of Religions For quite a few people it is annoying that representatives of different religions quarrel with each other and plead obstinately in favor of their own positions. From the concrete Asian situation Aloysius Pieris calls this kind of dialogue “a luxury.”2 In fact this rather theoretical attitude becomes intensified where religions peremptorily judge each other in the question of salvation. We mentioned the famous Catholic slogan “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.” (= “Outside the Church there is no salvation”), which in the meantime it is replaced by the sentence “Extra Christum nulla salus” (= “Outside of Christ there is no salvation”). Both phrases are not any longer to be interpreted in an exclusivist sense, but are only to be understood in an inclusivist way, and that in a way of mutual inclusiveness. The advantage of mutual inclusiveness consists in the fact that – as opposed to the pluralist approach – the different points of view are not only noticed, but put into relation to each other. People of different sides open themselves to each other in mutual inclusiveness, and that in such a way, that a different understanding of salvation does not exclude one another existentially as long as the incompatibility is not proved. In relation to this the representatives of the pluralist theory are content with the confirmation of the actual existence of a plurality of religious convictions without entering into a comparative evaluation. Such an attitude is not truly dialogic, and that all the more as it does not surpass the level of a theoretical intellectual game. In a time of unrest, distress, epidemics and poverty where every day thousands of people die by starvation and undernourishment some friendly perceptions and the improvement of atmosphere alone do not suffice. After all, the best known explanation of an inclusive attitude is still Karl Rahner’s conception of an “anonymous Christian.” In fact it was originally phrased from a merely Christian point of view, but soon it provoked reactions from other sides replying with sentences like “If I am an anonymous Christian, then you are an anonymous Buddhist,” or even “an anonymous atheist.” At first sight, the concept “anonymous” apparently leads to an imposing or a neutralizing one’s own name or even its loss. Yet wherever names are exchanged and mutually applied, first of all, one’s own name is not destroyed, on the contrary, it produces an opening to someone else and then it presents the other with 2 See A. Pieris, Fire and Water. Orbis: Maryknoll, N.Y. 1996, p.156.

94

Jesus Christ & the Religions

the most valuable which someone possesses, and this opening occurs mutually. We only have to realize that the name stands here for the identity of a person which cannot be easily exchanged.3 In the practice of Zen Buddhism several methods are applied to lead the disciple to a more rapid realization of the goal. E.g., the master gives him a so called kōan, usually a short story which implies a problem or a puzzle which can hardly be solved in a rational or argumentative way so that it calls for some intuitive grasp. Well known is Master Hakuin’s (1686-1789) demand: “Go and listen to the sound of one hand clapping!” Keiji Nishitani recounted a kōan in order to introduce to his understanding of a perfect I-Thou relationship; it is titled Kyōzan and “your Name”:4 Kyōzan asked Sanshō, “What’s your name?” Sanshō said, “Ejaku,” Kyōzan said, “Ejaku – that’s me.” Sanshō said, “My name is Enen.” Kyōzan laughed loudly.

The full name of Kyōzan is Kyōzan Ejaku, and the full name of Sanshō is Sanshō Enen. Evidently the mutual exchange of names can be taken as a contribution to the question treated here. In view of the attitude requested for an interreligious dialogue we can return to the basic question regarding the relation of Christ to other religions by drawing some conclusions which could be – maybe should be – examined by the our partners in dialogue. 3 For an Islamic discussion of the problem of inclusiveness see M. Ayoub’s article Nearest in Amity: Christians in the Qur’an and contemporary exegetical tradition, in I. Omar (ed.), A Muslim View of Christianity. Orbis: Maryknoll, N.Y. 2007, pp. 187-211. 4 See K. Nishitani, On the I-Thou Relationship in Zen Buddhism, in: The Eastern Buddhist [Kyoto] II/2, p. 71; for the Chinese context of the kōan see The Blue Cliff Record. Ed. Thomas and J.C. Cleary. Shamala: Boulder & London 1977. Vol. II, pp. 429-433, case nr. 68 of the collection (Chin. Pi-yen-lu; Jap. Hekiganroku).

5 • Dialogue & Profession

95

Faith in Christ and the Dialogue between Religions We summarize our deliberations in some propositions: (1) Faith in Jesus Christ, “truly man, truly God”: Facing other religions there is no reason that Christians reduce their faith in Christ. The basic conviction of Christians is that God communicated himself in Jesus of Nazareth once and for ever, totally and in an unequalled way and that following Christ in his life and his death leads to salvation. What is given in the life of Christ is valid for all humankind. Christians have to testify as their most precious legacy the faith in God’s self-communication and self-abandonment in Jesus Christ, and to announce that in Jesus “truly man” we encounter “truly God.” • Catholic theology is rooted in its sources, the belief in Jesus Christ as it is alive and handed on in the tradition of the Church and her three levels of teaching authority: the entire people of God, theological reflection and the episcopal magisterium with the Pope as its head. That implies: We have to listen to the various voices inside the

Illustration of Master Kakuan’s Ten Oxherding Pictures, 8th Station. Both Bull and Self Transcended (From Google: The Ten Oxherding Pictures)

96

Jesus Christ & the Religions

Church, and have to give special reference to the definitive and normative statements as they are promulgated in the Church. • Whatever has been safeguarded in the doctrinal frame work of the early Councils of the Church regarding the understanding of the Incarnation of God in Jesus Christ has to be filled always anew with the announcement of Christ’s teaching and acting. Jesus of Nazareth pronounced the kingdom of God. In view of his life, death and resurrection it calls for its continuous realization throughout history. • Encountering with the living Christ leads at the same time to a renewal of our understanding of God. For in Jesus Christ God, who existing beyond the universe seems to be so unconcerned regarding the world, becomes part of the world and gets involved. The almighty God shares in Jesus the weakness of creation and stands on the side of the poor and the weak. People who stand before God with open and empty hands find their perfection and fulfillment in a God who sides with them. • Open and empty hands are a topic also used in other religions. I like to recount only the 10th and final station of the famous Ten Oxherding Pictures of the Chinese Zen Master Kakuan (12th century A.D.). Each of the ten stations consists in a picture and its description followed by various poems.5 The title of the 10th station varies: ”Entering the City with Bliss-bestowing Hands” (D.T.Suzuki); “Entering the Market with Open Hands” (K. Tsujimura). The scenery has a touch of Pentecost when the enlightened man enters the market place: His cottage gate is closed, and even the wisest know him not. No glimpses of his inner life are to be caught; for he goes on his own way without following the steps of the ancient sages. Carrying a gourd [as a symbol of emptiness – H.W.} he goes out into the market, leaning against a staff {no extra property he has, for he knows that the desire to possess is the curse of human life) he comes home. He is found in company with wine-bibbers and butchers, he and they are all converted into Buddhas.

5 The description and the first poem are taken from an edition prepared by D.T.Suzuki, Manual of Zen Buddhism. Grove Press Inc.: New York 1960, p. 134; the second and third poem from: The Ox and His Herdsman. Ed. by K. Tsujimura and H. Buchner from Master Daizōkutsu R, Ōtsu and translated by M.H. Trevor. Hokuseido: Tokyo 1969, p.94.

5 • Dialogue & Profession

97

Poem 1 Bare-chested and bare-footed, He comes out into the market place; Daubed with mud and ashes, How broadly he smiles! There is no need For the miraculous power of the gods, For he touches, and lo! The dead trees are in full bloom.

Poem 2 In a friendly manner this fellow comes from a foreign race. From time to time his face clearly shows the traits of the horse or of the donkey. If he flashes the iron staff as quickly as the wind – Amply and wide suddenly opens door and gates.

Poem 3 Straight into the face the iron staff springs out of his sleeve. Sometimes he speaks Hunnish, sometimes Chinese, with a great laugh on his cheeks. If one understands how to meet one’s own self and yet to remain unknown to the self – The gate to the palace will open wide.

(2) Invitation, not judgment: The witness and announcement of Jesus Christ and God’s kingdom is no judgment on other people but an invitation for all to listen to the call about the God-given salvation and to accept it. • Long time non-Christians have been judged on behalf of the Christian self-understanding. Today it is the unanimous opinion of the Church that God “those who through no fault of their own are ignorant of the gospel” can lead “in ways known to himself ” to faith (see Ad gentes nr.7; also Lumen gentium nr. 16).The role of the various religions in this process has to be clarified further in time to come. In Dominus Iesus as well as in the notification about Jacques Dupuis we not only find general statements about the salvific vocation of men, but also some assertions about the religions. With reference to Dei

98

Jesus Christ & the Religions

verbum nr.11 it is stated in Dominus Iesus nr.8 that God “does not fail to make himself present in many ways, not only to individuals, but also to entire peoples through their spiritual riches, of which their religions are the main and essential expression.” The restrictive remarks added “even when they contain ‘gaps, insufficiencies and error’” can be disregarded because, when dealing with them, we had to recall similar charges against Christianity in view of its history, too. • The various attempts to separate the different ways of God’s presence in history from his presence in Jesus Christ do not help much, because human history is one and God’s presence in Jesus Christ is a moment of the entire reality of world history, also independently of the position a single person takes or is able to take to it concretely. Wherever humans make a decision in history, they make it in the horizon of its totality. • Contrary to previous impressions witnessing and proclaiming Christ by the faithful do not include a judgment about the salvific state of non-Christians and about the importance of other religions; they are an invitation. We have to insist on the character of invitation all the more because people are called to decide themselves freely about the way to life. (3) Mutual invitation: Each true religion is inclined to call people through its message to the way which leads to fulfillment. Therefore, we have to admit the possibility of mutual invitations and mutual evaluations. • One of the premises of interreligious dialogue is the will of seeing the other in the way he sees himself and grant mutually the possibility to share with each other whatever is precious and valuable for them. Accordingly, the mutual invitation should primarily serve a mutual strengthening and confirmation. All religions are called to cooperate in renewing a world which yearns for liberation and fulfillment in a comprehensive sense. • Cooperation does not exclude that religions are motivated in a different way. Motivations are by themselves also claims to each other and demands to reexamine their own approach. Also in this sense Christianity may bring into the dialogue its understanding of salvation as founded in Jesus Christ. • Christians should pay attention that facts and their impact count more than possibilities of thought, and that this also applies to the person of Christ. For the concrete dialogue it is important that re-

5 • Dialogue & Profession

99

ligions include in their arguments the historical facts. Whoever acts accordingly does not have to insist on something like absolute claims etc. • Dialogues on salvation do not exhaust themselves in theoretical disputes. They have to perceive and to find out where people live in situations calling for rescue, liberation and salvation, and have to seek ways and means to overcome them. (4) ”Called for freedom” (Gal 5:13): Because dialogue and proclamation take place in the free encounter of people, both are accomplished by human persons who know themselves to be called to freedom and open themselves freely for salvation granted by God. • Freedom is one of the main features of human existence determining human life in the pluralism of today’s daily experience. Therefore, where people are engaged in interreligious dialogue, they have to make liberty a topic of mutual exchange. • Even if freedom is highly esteemed today, the limits of our humanity, including our freedom, are not to be overlooked. On the one hand, individual freedom finds its limits in the freedom of other persons; on the other hand, freedom as such is a gift, in theological terms: a grace. But where we speak about grace, we directly or at least indirectly speak about God. • At this point we have to recall also the fact that State and society have to respect the religious freedom of the citizens including the freedom of religious communities to regulate their inner life according to their own rules and laws.6 • Part of our encounter with Christ’s liberating and saving action is our own engagement in liberating activities in the various fields of oppression in the world. As followers of Christ we are obliged to share Christ’s concern for the realization of the kingdom of God wherever people need and cry for help. (5) In solidarity with all men, open for God: Believers of all religions come together more closely when they cooperate in solidarity to help people in their various needs. Where people join in supporting others they become aware of what they can do, but also of the limitations of their possibilities. In situations of need numerous people even today call for God and gather in prayer to God. 6 See H. Waldenfels, The Principle of Religious Liberty and its Impact on Society, in: Pro Dialogo (Rome) nr. 121 (2006/1), pp. 98-111.

100

Jesus Christ & the Religions

• At times of distress many people start walking some distance together; they begin to reflect on their life and ask what is really human. Since the search of the truly human is less a question of theory but of practical response to concrete requirements and urgencies, interreligious dialogue is by itself focusing on the concrete modes of redemption. • In spite of all human engagement, in the final analysis the central message of any religion is that total rescue is a divine gift. Therefore, people have to look beyond all limitations and to admit that there exists a non-human center. Ultimately human life is non-anthropocentric; it is based on a ground about which man cannot dispose anymore. As a matter of fact, the emphasis on a non-anthropocentric core is shared very much by people in Asia and Africa. • Insisting on a non-anthropocentric core does not prevent us from professing that from there revelation and self-communication has occurred, and that the self-revelation of – whom we call – God enables us to dialogue with him and to speak about God who has become an efficient Word. • In 1986 Pope John Paul II convoked members of various religions in Assisi to pray for peace. In that occasion the various representatives prayed in front of each other, purposely not together. At least since then it is discussed whether and under what conditions people can invoke God together. That God has revealed himself is not simply to be presupposed because we do not dispose about God’s own freedom. Therefore, Christians and other believers should not simply presume that all people follow the conviction that God has revealed himself. (6) In silence and prayer before the living God: Whether people of different faiths may pray together depends much on their insight of how close they live consciously with God who is communicating with us and enables us to reply. However, in any situation people can remain in silence before and with him. • Jews and Christians can pray together because they share the common prayer-book of the Jews, the Psalms, which has also been the prayer-book of Jesus of Nazareth. Numerous official prayer texts of the Christian Churches have been borrowed from Judaism. Even in the weekly rhythm we still follow the Jewish distribution of time, although for quite a time Sunday as the day of Christ’s resurrection was considered the first day of a week; nevertheless, even today’s interna-

5 • Dialogue & Profession

101

tional way of counting Sunday as the 7th day of the week is meaningful if we take it as the day on which God finishes his work. • Where Moslems and Christians recognize in Allah and in the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the God of Jesus Christ” the same God, a common prayer is not simply excluded, but can be developed. This is all the more the case as for Moslems there is “no god but God.”7 • Even if the image of God differs in various points from the monotheistic understanding of God, the way of common silence remains as long as someone is open to the infinite and incomprehensible God. In fact, the way of common silence and exercise of silence are modes of opening and of searching for an inner width. Besides, silence as it is practiced in many forms of meditative contemplation and in religious services, admits that individual persons break it and exclaim loudly and understandably. The space of inner and outer meeting with God is greater than human reason can imagine. • Christians may insist on more common action of all religious people in the world by which they enter more deeply into the mystery of God, who from his side by his Incarnation in Jesus Christ entered this world in a healing and liberating way. Christians have to proclaim this mystery as an invitation provoking the world; we have only to consider the place of the cross: It was “ex-posed” “outside the gate” (Hebr 13:12). How else Eph 2:13-18 will be fulfilled? Now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have become near by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, he who made both one and broke down the dividing wall of enmity, through his flesh,… and might reconcile both with God, in one body, through the cross, by putting that enmity to death by it. He came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father.

By looking at Jesus of Nazareth crucified, Christ in his weakness, Christ on the side of the little ones, the needy, the oppressed and the poor Christians are admonished to treat people who do not believe in him while struggling for their salvation, in a way that “the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its meaning” (1 Cor 1:17). Quoting this word of St. Paul about the proclamation of the cross of Christ, I 7 See R. Aslan, No god but God. Random House: New York 2005

102

Jesus Christ & the Religions

like to recall Kosuke Koyama’s assertion that the cross has “no handle.” And I add what Aloysius Pieris emphatically asserts:8 … there cannot be a Christ minus the Cross, and, conversely, Christ cannot be absent wherever a Cross is carried anywhere on earth, whatever be the religion of the one who carries it, for he or she is a disciple of Jesus. In this lies the uniqueness of Jesus and the uniqueness of the mission he entrusts to those who publicly claim to follow him.

Aloysius Pieris makes himself the voice of people who have lost their voice to protest and the power to counteract against their sufferings. His voice gives hope which is based upon the promise of God which has become visible in Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ on the Cross. Wherever people find salvation in the world, it will be granted in view of the Cross. People, therefore, should not thwart each other; they should help each other to perceive the word of reconciliation, to make peace, to find happiness and to receive love, freedom and salvation. Where people do not impede each other, but cooperate to open up ways leading to salvation and liberation, at the end there will be the desire to sing hymns of gratitude and praise together.

8 See A. Pieris, Christ Beyond Dogma. Doing Christology in the Context of Religion and the Poor, in Louvain Studies 25 (2000), pp. 182-231; quotes: pp. 223f and 220. See my response Chapter 3 note 14; and H.Waldenfels, Gott. Auf der Suche nach dem Lebensgrund. Benno: Leipzig 2nd ed. 1997, pp. 63-72.

appendix 1 Key-word: Theology of Religions (1) Matter in question: The necessity of dealing with other religions in theology results from the fact that in modern society as well as in the Church people become aware of the growing influence of other religions. Therefore theology has to deal with two questions: (a) the estimation of different religious messages, (b) a reexamination of theological positions related to other religions. Insofar as religions are attempted answers to the basic human questions and are also occupied with origin and aim of the human race and the world, the experiences of suffering, guilt and death, on the one hand, and the desire for liberation, forgiveness, redemption and salvation, on the other hand, the relation between the different ways of salvation and liberation as they are offered in Christianity and other religions are to be reflected. Because in Christianity salvation is bound to the person of Jesus Christ, his life, death and resurrection, and his life is understood as the Incarnation of God, this part of reflection is centered on God become man. (2) Hermeneutical indication: In a period of growing intercommunication, in which by the Church dialogue is demanded inside and outside the Church, theology is going to deal with religious communities as they today exist. It therefore enters a field where it does not suffice any more that it talks about others; as far as possible, it has to talk with the others. That means: Before dealing with any estimation of others we have to listen to them, and also theologians have to try to see things, first of all, with the eyes of the others. Theology of religions, therefore, has to become a fluctuation between knowledge of the alien points of view and reflection on one’s own point of view. We also have to see that it becomes less and less possible to subsume all religions under the generic concept of religion, because each religion in itself deserves respect and attention. It is not possible any longer to construct a meta-position, that is to say, a position above or outside of all religions in order to gain a collective sight of the whole universe of religions. We have only the chance to work inside the tension between the own ecclesial-Christian point of view which for theologians is the basic orientation and the normative di-

104

Jesus Christ & the Religions

rective, and other points of view from where other faithful take their way. On the basis of this attitude a mutual understanding is called for without putting into question or even giving up one’s own point of view. Evidently dialogues interested in finding the truth, nevertheless, will lead to corrections on all sides so that no participant of a dialogue will leave it totally unchanged. Since, however, also interreligious dialogues are not only engaged in a process of mutual knowledge but its partners have to negotiate with each other about the common targets in public life, a common analysis of the societal and individual life, of human needs and the objectives of common concern in pursuing a world of peace and justice is requested too. Indeed in every age the Church has to carry out her responsibility of reading the “signs of the times” and of interpreting them in the light of the Gospel (see Gaudium et spes nr. 4); and this she has to accomplish in words and in action. The Church even needs “the help of people who are living in the world, who are expert in its organization and its forms of training, and who understand its mentality, in the case of believers and non believers” (nr. 44).9 (3) Paradigm “Jews and Christians”: The most intensive place where today westerners learn how to dialogue is the debate between Christians and Jews. This dialogue got intensified after World War II and the terrible experiences of the time of Nazism when millions of Jews were sent to and murdered in German concentration camps, and Christians became aware that most of the murderers had been baptized. Christians, at first, were shocked and silenced, and then they learnt what it means to show respect for the other subject.10 Since then the Jewish homicide is reason to reexamine the conversation with the adherents of the Old Testament fundamentally. Several points have to be taken into account: (a) For Christians Judaism is not a religion like any other because Christianity originated from Judaism. It is the root of Christianity (see Rom 11:18): Jesus has been born as a Jew. (b) When Christians receive the Jewish Bible as their Holy Scripture they do this, first, because the Jewish Bible was the Holy Scripture of Jesus, and, secondly, because Christians cannot detach them9 See in more detail H. Waldenfels, Kontextuelle Fundamentaltheologie. Schöningh: Paderborn 4th ed. 2005, pp. 483-501. 10 See ibid. pp. 419-427.

Appendix 1 • Key-word: Theology of Religions

105

selves from God’s history with the Jews, but are bound to it, too. The covenant which God concluded with the Jews is unrecalled and remains unrecalled (see Rom 9-11). Therefore, the Church does not take the place of the synagogue as it was maintained for centuries. The so called theory of substitution by which the Church appropriates the attributes originally assigned to the people of Israel to herself cannot be maintained any longer. (c) And yet, Christians have to deal with the Jews also about Jesus crucified, although the term “Jewish mission” or propagating the faith to the Jews is very misleading and should be avoided by all means. As far as we understand the missionary command of the Church as witnessing of the message of Christ, we have to acknowledge that today a mutual witnessing is to be expected and this will be an exchange of inquiry and response. (d) A theology of Judaism can be only understood as a dialogical theology, which respects the others as partners who are included into the theological reflection as subjects, and no longer treated as objects of research. One symbol that this is the way into a common future is the fact that more than before Jews and Christians are succeeding in praying together to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who is also the God of Jesus Christ. (4) The Christian message of salvation: In 1 Tim 2:3-6 we find sentences which for others are at once invitation, claim und challenge: This is good and pleasing to God our savior, who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, there is also one mediator between God and the human race, Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave himself as ransom for all.

The passage begins with a sentence which even far beyond the borders of the Church many people will agree upon. God wishes that all human people will find salvation and truth. A motive for contradiction is given with the following sentences in which Jesus Christ is declared the only mediator of salvation between God and men. The contradiction is twofold: (a) Salvation is promised in other religions independently from Jesus Christ. (b) The arguments in favor of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ are put into question even in ecclesial circles; sometimes they are even denied. Here the following points are to be considered: (1) Replying to the questions we should rather not start from what separates but from what evidently unites us. Religions agree that hu-

106

Jesus Christ & the Religions

man persons are unable to create their all comprising salvation in virtue of their own abilities; final salvation must be granted so that humans become its receiver. The question is who will give salvation – here the question of God is posed. Moreover, the meaning of salvation differs between the religions although the word “salvation” is used in an almost inflationary way – here the question of salvation is opened. (2) The Christian answer to both questions is not arrogant and presumptuous as long as the Christian message of salvation does not imply any judgments about non-Christians and is proposed as an invitation which can be freely accepted or rejected. Only in such a way is it possible for others not to end up in a criticism of Christianity without being forced to examine themselves. Nobody can forbid that Christians answer the question of salvation by turning to Jesus Christ und being convinced that Jesus’ relation to God is unrivalled in history. Nobody can impede Christians from proclaiming God’s saving action as an unmeasured value which they do not want to withhold from other people. Who wishes to contradict has to do it in an argumentative way. (3) For Christians the true way to God leads through Jesus Christ and his relation to God the Father: “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.” ( John 14:9) In Christ God has revealed himself in a Trinitarian way of relations in which humans find new life after guilt and death. For Christians the new life is a new life in community: they call it a “community at the table of the Lord.” Salvation is ultimately a loving interpersonal exchange and conversation in which human people get unified because they are united with the triune God. (4) Such a view of fulfillment does not exclude anybody explicitly any more. Reversely nobody can deny that the concrete course of history has passed through certain periods and that certain events have occurred; and it does not matter whether some people might think these events should better not have happened, or they judge them differently and assign to them a different significance for their life and for others. Concretely speaking, judgments like these do not make life and death of Jesus Christ undone; they also cannot simply destroy their provocation. That also the enlightenment of the historical Buddha and the message of the prophet Muhammad belong to the events which have objectively influenced the course of world history and cannot be made undone cannot be seriously denied. Yet events like these do not relativize each other in their uniqueness by any means. Therefore, it does

Appendix 1 • Key-word: Theology of Religions

107

not help much if adherents of a religious way try to withdraw from the validity and inspiration of their founder. In fact what is gained if Christians do not consider Jesus Christ any more as the savior of the world, “the bread for the life of the world” ( John 6:51), and take his words not any further as promise of eternal life (see John 6:68)? (5) The role of religions: Where New Testament speaks about the environment of Jesus in a personal way, Jews and gentiles, Jews and Greeks are mentioned; another religious grouping does take place. This changes conditionally when Islam appeared. Religions as institutions similar to the Christian Churches in east and west we find only after the discovery of the new world in modern times. From that time on they are organizational formations like states and, later on, cultures. They became competing partners about the middle of the 20th century when former European colonies got their independence and became independent nations. Since then not only the plurality of societal phenomena in general, but religious plurality in a special way calls for its motivation. Theological research of foreign religions was, at first, occupied with the gods and idols of religions in the Jewish neighborhood of the Old Testament, their estimation and veneration. In the diversity of its aspects this research is still unfinished. Undoubtedly for a long time the overall estimation was negative; the gods were idols fabricated by human hands; they had to be destroyed. When the first part of the book of Genesis was enlarged by the stories of the patriarchs the God of Israel turned to become the God of the whole universe. Later on the prophets began to speak about the “nations” and the “peoples” (see the pilgrimage of the nations to Zion in Is 2:1-3), and the wisdom literature gave profile to God the creator of the universe. In the life of Jesus we meet with many instances where non-Jews were made examples for the Jews to find faith, and Jesus showed that God’s grace was not limited to his chosen people. Rom 1:20-23 explicitly states: Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. For claiming to be wise, they became fools and changed the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or four-legged animals or of snakes.

108

Jesus Christ & the Religions

In consequence of the biblical statements the Church Fathers positively wrote about the salvific effects produced by Jesus Christ in Word and Spirit for all humankind, all times and all places. In the days of Vatican II texts like these were well elaborated by theologians like Jean Danielou and Henri de Lubac, later on by Jacques Dupuis, though we have to remember that the term “religion” was differently used in the times of the Fathers. Actually the systematic and organizational understanding of religion entered theology only in modern times. There we can discover it in manuals of fundamental theology where the problem of “true religion” was treated and later on the diversity of religions was reflected for the first time. Only very recently when members of other religions began to live with us in our cities and became even our neighbors and when westerners met with them in the own countries and while traveling to the foreign countries and when they came to know them in their religiosity and their religious conduct, little by little prejudices changed and even disappeared. The question of the existential importance of other religions became unavoidable: it was by no means enough to reach a high estimation of their cultural and artistic values. It cannot be denied that all religions are attempted answers to the fundamental questions of humankind (see Nostra aetate nr.1), and these answers might be given in view of God the creator (see Rom 1). Whether or how far each religion is an echo of God’s word (according to Hebr 1) or to the activity of his Spirit is another question; it is being asked, however, in our days because God’s word and the activity of his Spirit is touched upon wherever we talk of salvation and human perfection. We have to admit it as a further step when the notification on Jacques Dupuis nr. 8 asserts that it is “legitimate to maintain that the Holy Spirit accomplishes salvation in non-Christians, also through those elements of truth and goodness present in the various religions.” If this is the case it is difficult to understand why – considering everything which so far has been pronounced by Catholic theologians and the ecclesial magisterium – it should not be allowed to call other religions “ways of salvation.” That has to be admitted all the more since the majority of human people will find their existential way of salvation definitely not in an explicit profession of faith in Jesus Christ. This is true, independently from the fact that ultimately human history is not determined by the subjective acceptance or denial of single persons regarding objective elements of the course of history. The cross of Christ remains

Appendix 1 • Key-word: Theology of Religions

109

implanted into the earth outside the gates of Jerusalem, and it does not matter whether people pass by unmindfully or stand by and confess: “Truly, this was the son of God.” (Mt 27:54)

appendix 2 Basic Texts 1. From Hinduism

The Origin and the One in the Indian Veda: Rigveda X 1291 Then neither Being nor Not-being was, Nor atmosphere, nor firmament, nor what is beyond. What did it encompass? Where? In whose protection? What was water, the deep, unfathomable? Neither death nor immortality was there then, No sign of night or day. That One (tad ekam) breathed, windless, by its own energy (svadhā): Nought else existed then. In the beginning was darkness swathed in darkness; All this was but unmanifested water. Whatever was, that One, coming into being, hidden by the Void, Was generated by the power of heat (tapas). In the beginning this [One] evolved, Became desire, first seed of mind (manas). Wise seers, searching within their hearts, Found the bond of Being in Not-being. Their cord was extended athwart: Was there a below? Was there an above? Casters of seed there were, and powers; Beneath was energy, above was impulse. Who knows truly? Who can here declare it? Whence it is born, whence is this emanation. By the emanation of this the gods only later [came to be] 1 Quoted from: Hindu Scriptures. Selected, translated and introduced by R.C. Zaehner. Dent: London/Dutton: New York 1966, pp. 11f; the following quotations with pp. in the text from this edition.

Appendix 2 • Basic Texts Who then knows whence it has arisen? Whence this emanation hath arisen, Whether [God] disposed it, or whether he did not, Only he who is its overseer in highest heaven knows, [He only knows.] or perhaps he does not know!

From the Indian Upanishads:

Brhadāranyaka Upanishad I ,3.2 (pp. 34f) From the unreal lead me to the real! From the darkness lead me to the light! From death lead me to immortality! When he says, ‘From the unreal lead me to the real’, by the unreal [he means] death, by the real immortality. [When he says,] ‘From death lead me to immortality’, he means, ‘Make me immortal’. And when he says, ‘From darkness lead me to the light’, by darkness [he means] death, and by light immortality. [When he says,] ’From death lead me to immortality’, he means, ‘Make me immortal’. ‘From death lead me to immortality!’ There is nothing obscure about that.

Brhadāranyaka Upanishad III, 9.26 (ibid. p.59) ’[Śākalya said:] ‘On what are you and [your] self (ātman) based?’ [Yājňavalkya said:] ‘On the in-breath.’ ‘On what is the in-breath based?’ ‘On the out-breath.’ ‘On what is the out-breath based?’ ‘On the “diffused” breath.’ ‘On what is the “diffused” breath based?’ ‘On the “upper” breath.’ On what is the “upper” breath based?’ ‘On the “concentrated” breath. This Self (ātman) – [what can one say of it but] “No, no!” (neti-neti). It is impalpable, for it cannot be grasped; indestructible, for it can-

111

112

Jesus Christ & the Religions not be destroyed; free from attachment, for it is not attached [to anything], not bound. It does not quaver nor can it be hurt.

Chāndogya Upanishad VI, 11 (ibid. p. 110) ‘[Look at] this great tree, my dear. If you were to strike at its root, it would bleed but live on; if you were to strike it in the middle, it would bleed but live on; if you were to strike it at the top, it would bleed but live on. Strengthened by the living Self (ātman), it still stands, drinking in the moisture and exulting If life (jīva) leaves one of its branches, it dries up; if it leaves a second, that too dries up; if it leaves a third, that too dries up. If it leaves the whole [tree], the whole [tree] dries up. This, my dear boy, is how you ought to understand it,’ he said. When the life has gone out of it, this [body] dies; [but] the life does not die. This finest essence – the whole universe has it as its Self: That is the Real: That is the Self; That you are (tat twam asi), Śvetaketu!’ ‘Good sir, will you kindly instruct me further?’ ‘I will, my dear child,’ said he.

2. From Buddhism The Four Noble Truths from the Sermon of the Buddha: Mahāvagga I 6, 19- 232 This, O Bhikkus, is the Noble Truth of Suffering. Birth is suffering; decay is suffering; illness is suffering; death is suffering.. Presence of objects we have, is suffering; separation from objects we love is suffering; not to obtain what we desire, is suffering, Briefly, the fivefold clinging to existence is suffering. This, O Bhikkus, is the Noble Truth of the Cause of suffering. Thirst, that leads to re-birth, accompanied by pleasure and lust, finding its delight here and there. (This thirst is threefold), namely thirst for pleasure, thirst for existence, thirst for prosperity. 2 Quoted from Vinaya Texts I, translated from the Pali by T.W.Rhys Davids/Hermann Oldenburg (in 1882). Motilal Banarsidass: Delhi – Patna – Vanarasi 1974, p. 95f.

Appendix 2 • Basic Texts

113

This, O Bhikkus, is the Noble Truth of the Cessation of suffering: (it ceases with) the complete cessation of this thirst – a cessation which consists in the absence of every passion – with the abandoning of this thirst, with the doing away with it, with the deliverance from it, with the destruction of desire. This, O Bhikkus, is the Noble Truth of the Path which leads to the cessation of suffering: that holy eightfold Path, that is to say, Right Belief, Right Aspiration, Right Speech, Right Conduct, Right Means of Livelihood, Right Endeavour, Right Memory, Right Meditation. This is the Noble Truth of Suffering; – thus, O Bhikkus. of this doctrine, which formerly had not been heard of, have I obtained insight, knowledge, understanding, wisdom, intuition.

From Tibetan Buddhism:

Atīśa’s The Lamp for the Path3 [1] Bowing in great reverence to all past, present and Future Victors, to their Teaching and Communities, I shall light a Lamp for the Path to Awakening, At the request of my good disciple, Byang-chub-‘od. [2] Persons can be understood to be of three kinds, In that they are Inferiors, Mediocre, or Superior, The characteristics of each are very clear, and 3 From The Complete Works of Atiśa Śrī Dī pamkara J ñāna, Jo-Bo-Rje, translated and annotated by Richard Sherburne SJ Aditya Prakashan: New Delhi. First Reprint 2003, pp, 329-345. I quote from the Key Texts translations which repeats the Root Text (pp.520) with some smaller changes; see also the Commentary on the “Difficult Points of the Lamp for Enlightenment Path” (pp. 23-319). Atīśa (982-1054) was an Indian monk who initiated the “Second Spread” of Buddhism in Tibet. In his Foreword to R. Sherburne’s translation the Dalai Lama asserts: “This book, which was written by Atīśa with special needs of his Tibetan disciples in mind, is the prototype of the stages of the (Lam rim) literature which reached its full bloom amongst later Tibetan teachers and scholars. It presents the important practices in a concise and easily understandable manner and orders them in terms of the development and ability of the mind.” (pp. xi-xii)

114

Jesus Christ & the Religions I shall note how they differ from another. … [6] For those pure beings whose desire Is the highest of Awakenings, I shall explain the right means Which were taught me by my gurus. … [9] With deep faith in the Three Jewels. Bending knee to the ground And folding the hands, First of all take the Refuges thrice. [10] Then, because the Thought of Love For all creatures is prerequisite, One looks out on the whole world, Suffering in death, transmigration, And rebirth in the three bad destinies: [11] At sight of suffering, oneself suffers; And he who desires to free the world From the very cause of this suffering, Must beget the Thought of Awakening Pledging never to turn back. … [19] Good resolutions will not be furthered Without vows that have progress in mind; Therefore he who seeks growth in his resolve for Perfect Awakening, earnestly makes commitment. … [31] “Purifying the actions of My body and speech entirely, I shall cleanse my mind’s activity as well; No unvirtuous deed will ever be mine.” [32] In essence, one’s purity of body, speech, and mind Means keeping vows whose intent is on progress; For by practicing well the Three Conduct Trainings, Appreciation of those same three becomes greater. …

Appendix 2 • Basic Texts [35] Just as a bird with unfledged wings Cannot fly up in the sky; So without the superknowledges’ power, One cannot work for the good (of ) others. … [41] When yogic Calmness is achieved, So are the superknowledges; But obscuration is still not destroyed Without the perfection of insight. [42] Hence, to remove all obscuration Of his afflictions and in his knowledge, The yogin must continually cultivate the Perfection of Insight together with Means. … [47] “Insight” is fully explained as knowing The Emptiness of intrinsic nature. In comprehending that Aggregates and Sense-bases and Elements do not arise. … [53] Thus, not to perceive intrinsic nature In any phenomenon whatever Is to contemplate its Non-Self; which Is the same as contemplating with Insight. [54] And this Insight which does not see Intrinsic nature in any phenomena Is that same Insight explained as Wisdom. Cultivate it without conceptual thought. [55] The world of change springs from conceptual Thought, which is its very nature; The complete removal of such Thought is the Highest Nirvana.

115

116

Jesus Christ & the Religions

3. From Daoism

Laotse, Tao Te Ching, chapter 14 The way that can be spoken of Is not the constant way; The name that can be named Is not the constant name. The nameless was the beginning of heaven and earth; The named was the mother of the myriad creatures. Hence always rid yourself of desires in order to observe its secrets; But always allow yourself to have desires in order to observe its manifestations. These two are the same But diverge in name as they issue forth. Being the same they are called mysteries, Mystery upon mystery – The gateway of the manifold secrets.

Chapter 11 Thirty spokes, share one hub. Adapt the nothing therein to the purpose in hand, and you will have the use of the cart. Knead clay in order to make a vessel. Adapt the nothing therein to the purpose in hand, and you will have the use of the vessel. Cut out doors and windows in order to make a room. Adapt the nothing therein to the purpose in hand, and you will have the use of the room. Thus what we gain is Something, yet it is by virtue of Nothing that this can be put to use.

4. From the Jewish heritage Deuternomium 6:4-9

Hear, O Israel! (Hebr. Ś[h]ema’) Jahwe is our God, Jahwe alone.

4 Quoted from Laotse, Tao Te Ching. ed. D.C. Lau. The Chinese University of Hongkong 2001, pp. 3 and 15ff.

Appendix 2 • Basic Texts

117

Therefore, you shall love Jahwe, your God, with all you heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength. Take to heart these words which I enjoin you today. Drill them into you children. Speak of them at home and abroad, whether you are busy or are at rest. Bind them at your wrist as a sign and let them be as a pendant on your forehead. Write them on the doorposts of your houses and on your gates. (Dtn 6: 4-9)

5. From the beginning of Islam The Qur’an5

Sure 96:1-5: The Embryo In the name of Allah, most benevolent, ever-merciful Read in the name of the who created, Created man from embryo; Read, for Your Lord is most beneficent, Who taught by the pen, Taught man what he did not know.

Sure 1:1-7: The Prologue In the name of Allah, most benevolent, ever-merciful All praise be to Allah, Lord of all the worlds. Most beneficent, ever-merciful. King of the Day of Judgment. You alone we worship, and to You alone we turn for help. Guide us (o Lord) to the path that is straight, The Path of those You have blessed, Not of those who have earned Your anger, nor those who have gone astray.

5 From Al-Qur’an. Ed. Ahmed Ali. Princeton University Press: Princeton, N.J. 3rd printing 1990.

Glossary Note: The Glossary contains only concepts referred to in the book. Ātman Literally Sanskrit: breath, to breathe, often translated with soul, principle of life, spirit, at first principle of individual life, later also world soul. In the Upanishads (–> Veda) ātman is mostly identified with brahman = principle of unity in or behind all diversity, so that ātman and Brahman, the absolute reality, are one or not-two (in the understanding of the advaita- = Not-Two doctrine). The Hindu doctrine is rejected in the Buddhist doctrine about anātman = no-ātman. Avatāra Literally Sanskrit: crossing, moving over. In Hinduism a figure of descent, especially of god Vishnu who turns himself to humans in a saving way; in earlier understanding: whenever one era calls for a new and just era. At first there were ten avātara; later the concept was expanded to historical personalities like the Buddha or Christ and others. In Indian theology the term is also used as translation of “incarnation.” Bodhisattva Literally Sanskrit: the [to enlightenment] awakened one. In –> Mahāyāna Buddhism someone who is about to attain full enlightenment, but in the spirit of compassion for those still struggling on the way, he renounces the final step and turns back to the non-enlightened helping them to reach their final goal, too. For a great number of struggling faithful and trustful humans Bodhisattvas (–> Kuan-yin) are figures of invocation and helpers on the way to fulfillment. Brahman –> Ātman Buddha As Christ also Buddha is no name, but a title: the Awakened, the Enlightened One. Enlightenment is at first pronounced for the historical founder of the way to liberating enlightenment, Siddharta Gautama

• Glossary

119

Shākyamuni (560-480). However, since it is the goal of anyone to attain enlightenment, in view of the historical Buddha numerous people before and after him are said to have reached Buddhahood and, therefore, are called Buddha, too. Discretio spirituum Latin = discernment of spirits. It refers to the doctrine of discernment of spirits as it is explained in two sets of rules in the book of Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola (1491-1556). Originally the doctrine goes back to the art of the Desert Fathers and their methods of coming to a clear judgment about one’s inner motivations and of finding ways of distinction between the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the impulses of other “spirits.” In the meantime the rules are applied wherever we are watching the guidance of the Spirit in the “signs of the time,” therefore, not only in individual, but also in ecclesial and societal life. Dominus Iesus Dominus Iesus are the first two words of a Declaration of the Congregation of Faith which was signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger on August 6, 2000 and published in Rome on September 5, 2000. According to its subtitle the declaration is focused on two points, the unicity and salvific universality of Jesus Christ and of the Church. Undoubtedly the first part is emphasized. It has to be seen in connection with the notification on a book of Fr. Jacques Dupuis SJ dealing with questions of a Christian theology of religious pluralism, published a few months later on January 24, 2001. Doxology Literally Greek: doxa = splendor, glory + logos = speech, a God glorifying speech or prayer. In the proper sense it is a mode of formal prayer by which God or Jesus Christ is mentioned and reference is made to eternity, and the assembly is invited to reply “Amen.” See the conclusion of liturgical prayers like “God….We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ, who lives, and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, for ever and ever.” In a broader understanding of the term the doxological structure reappears where one’s life practice becomes a way of confessing God by following and surrendering oneself to Jesus Christ imbued by the power of his Spirit.

120

Jesus Christ & the Religions

Hypostasis For many contemporaries an obscure notion – literally from Greek “underlying” –, it is one of the Greek concepts which were influential in the time of the early councils, especially Chalcedon, and became one of the pillars in explaining the relation between divine and human –> nature in the person of Jesus Christ (keyword: hypostatic union) and the inner-trinitarian relations between God (Father), Jesus (Son, Word) and Holy Spirit. One reason for an ambivalent understanding is the fact that the Latin translation of hypostasis was done in a rather inconsistent way, partly with substantia, partly with persona. Consequently the concept lost its proper meaning later on, and rendered the understanding of the pronouncements of Chalcedon rather difficult. –> Person Immanence –> Transcendence Individuality –> Person Karma Sanskrit: act, action. It is one of the most fundamental notions of Indian thought and spirituality. In Vedic writings (–> Veda) karma is used for ritual actions and sacrifices, but also for acts ordered or prohibited by divine order. Good karma and bad karma cause and influence the cycle of rebirths; by this it gets moral evaluation. Thus karma presupposes a causality infringing on several existences, it is connected with the belief in reincarnation, and implies moral standards. Because of the interconnectedness of all being karma is an underlying factor of history which by itself is not restricted to the existence of single persons, but exercises an impact on history as such. Because of its moral implication karmic existence is not to be considered as a mechanistic determinism, although the problem of free will has not been solved in a satisfying way so far. And yet, the various reflections and interpretations of karmic life convene in the conviction that people have to overcome karmic life and yearn to be rescued from it (in Hindu language: moksha = liberation). Karunā Sanskrit: mercy, compassion, “sympathy.” The notion signifies together with –> Prajňā = wisdom the two sides of an enlightened existence.

• Glossary

121

Kenotic Christology/Theology “Kenotic” is derived from the Greek verb kenoun = to empty out, or the noun kenōsis, also ekkenōsis = act of emptying. The verb is applied to Jesus of Nazareth in whom God “emptied himself,” and became man = non-God and surrendered himself into death (see Phil 2:9). The approach received new actuality as soon as it was compared with –> Shūnyatā = emptying, emptiness in –> Mahāyāna Buddhism where it plays a central role in the understanding of way and goal of Buddhist life. In consequence, more than “(absolute) nothingness,” the notion of “emptiness” gained high importance in Buddhist-Christian dialogue. Kuan-yin Chin., Sanskrit Avalokiteshvara, Jap. Kannon is one of the most popular –> Bodhisattva in –> Mahāyāna Buddhism. Originally he, later on she is associated with Amida Buddha or Buddha Amithāba (Sanskrit), the Lord of the West where in the Buddhist universe the “Pure Land” of fulfillment is located. He is the Bodhisattva of compassion and mercy and in this capacity invoked by numerous people in Central and East Asia. In Japan where Kannon is often represented as woman with child, figures of Kannon served in the time of Christian persecution as concealed figures of Mary the mother of Jesus. Mahāyāna Buddhism = Buddhism of the Great Vehicle. Next to Hīnayāna Buddhism = Buddhism of the Little Vehicle, it is the second large group and form of Buddhism, today mainly spread in Central and East Asia. Tibetan Buddhism is part of the Great Vehicle; however, often as Diamond Vehicle also considered a third form of Buddhism. Mahāyāna is a “great vehicle” (i.e., crossing to the other shore) because more than in original Buddhism Buddha’s way and teaching is opened up to and facilitates a saving way for all living. In the history of Buddhism there is a continuous endeavor to restore the universality of the liberating way. It can be easily perceived in the fact that the rigorous forms of “Self Power” or meditative Buddhism (Chin. Chan; Jap. Zen) provoked the complementary form of “Other Power” or Amida Buddhism, in which the invocation of the “Other Power” of Amida Buddha and his Bodhisattvas (–> Kuan-yin) became very popular in China, Korea and Japan. A further step was done in the development of strong lay organizations in the 20th century.

122

Jesus Christ & the Religions

Mandala Literally Sanskrit: circle. Mandalas are in Hinduism and Buddhism quadrate or/and circular pictorial images which are used in meditative practices, and by forms and colors give access to the inner world and the dwelling of the divine. Also modern psychology discovered in the art of mandala painting routes to one’s own interior and self. In Christianity mandala forms have been rediscovered in classical images and icons of Christ and Mary. A special place is to be allocated to the visionary illustrations of St. Hildegard of Bingen (Germany). Monophysitism = Christian heresy in which one of the two –> natures of Jesus Christ is belittled or denied. Whereas in earlier times mostly Christ’s humanity was reduced, in our days more often his divinity is contested. Nature (in theology) “Nature” in theology is not understood as the universe, the growing and in cyclical terms renewed world of all living beings. It is a notion borrowed from Greek philosophy, and signifies the essence of a being. What at first was applied mostly to finite beings was later on also used for the essence of God who was considered Being as such. In this sense humanity and divinity are two “natures,” human and divine nature which both are fully realized in the one person of Jesus of Nazareth. Narrative “Narrative theology” reminds of the fact that theology in its origin does not start off with arguments; it rather lives from great narratives which we find in Holy Scripture. It begins with narrates of the creation and fall and depicts God’s further conduct with his creatures in stories and events, all of which finds its continuation in the life story of Jesus of Nazareth. What, first of all, was given to us in a narrative way, has to be passed on to future generations in a similar way. Not withstanding all necessary and helpful reflections and argumentations, the Church is, first of all, a community focused on memories of its origin in Jesus Christ which have to be kept alive, and on narratives which have to be passed on. Consequently, today historical research is emphasized while dealing with Jesus of Nazareth before entering the problematic of interpretation and speculative reflection.

• Glossary

123

Negative Theology/Christology The concept “negative theology” is originally connected with PseudoDionysius the Areopagite, a still not identified theologian of the 5. Century A.D.; he was occupied in speaking about God by concentrating on what God is not. This way of theologizing was continued in the Middle Ages by Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure and others, later on by classical mystical theologians like John of the Cross in Spain, Master Eckhart and other representatives of Rhenish and Dutch mysticism, also by Nikolaus of Kues and others. It provoked new interest in a time when speaking of and believing in God becomes rather difficult. “Negative Christology” describes the limits of human understanding in positively explaining Jesus Christ, “truly God, truly man.” Another starting point close to negative Christology became what is called –> kenotic Christology. Negative theology is intimately connected with analogous and symbolic speech. Nirvāna Sanskrit: blowing away, extinguishing. The concept first used in Hinduism became the best known signification of the goal which people are striving for in Buddhism. Even if on behalf of the radical detachment of everything included concepts, nīrvāna is primarily expressed negatively, it is to be comprehended in an absolutely positive manner. Therefore, especially in –> Mahāyāna Buddhism we find positive expressions like enlightenment, liberation, bliss and others, too. See also –> Shūnyatā. Whenever nīrvāna is translated as “nothing(ness),” it by no means should be understood in a nihilistic way . Person (in theology) In theology the word originally derived from Latin is not to be interchanged simply with “human.” Actually the Latin origin proves that “person” is not one of the classical concepts borrowed from Greek philosophy. Looking for points of contact there are two Greek terms: –> hypostasis and prosopon. Hypostasis is effective where – as with Boethius – person is conceived as the individual, unexchangeable substance of a rational being or of a spiritual –> “nature.” In anthropological understanding being-by-and-in-oneself is stressed to the point that in his unexchangeability a person becomes incommunicable, that is to say, he is so unique in his inner core that he cannot communicate himself any further. However, the notion “person” comes more close to the

124

Jesus Christ & the Religions

Greek prosopon = the mask of an actor who “sounds” or becomes audible through the mask (Latin personare), and by this he gets related to the auditor(s), that is to other people. Whereas the concept “substance” was completely inappropriate in the reflection of Holy Trinity unless it should end up in a belief in three gods (tritheism), relationality was a good starting-point. Without entering into the complex history of the concept, we have to maintain that in modern times the concept “person” consists of two elements of equal importance: individuality referring to the unexchangeable self-identity and relationality referring to and opening up ways of communication with others and the Other. It can be further discussed whether being-from-another does not deserve the primacy over being-by-and-in-oneself. And it can – theologically – be also asked whether personality should be thought from man to God, or, rather, from God to man. Anyway, the concept of person in its various facets is one of the most important concepts in intercultural and interreligious dialogue. It is not be neglected in a comparative study of Indian and Chinese anthropology and cosmology. Pluralist theology of religion Opposite to the doctrine that the attainment of salvation is exclusively (see “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” = “No salvation outside the Church”) or inclusively (see Karl Rahner’s “anonymous Christians” = “unknowingly bound to Jesus Christ) linked to Christianity, the authors of a pluralist theology of religion – above all John Hick, Wilfred C. Smith, Paul F. Knitter – assert or tend to assert that independently from Christianity and the salvific action of Christ other religions are ways of salvation. By this they react against Christian absolutism as displayed since the period of colonial conquest and missionary activities, as well as to the demand of equality of the partners in a process of dialogue. In the final instance, however, the question of truth is highly reduced, if not even excluded, so that the own convictions are often discussed in rather abbreviated ways. Undoubtedly also the representatives of a strongly pluralist approach are endeavored to offer their opinion as compatible with Christian understanding. However, since in many points they apparently leave behind the normative Christian teachings, the debate has to deal with philosophical (epistemological problems like the human ability of finding truth and others) and theological and Christological arguments as well. It has to be noted that

• Glossary

125

the concept referred to here is not to be confused with other forms of pluralist theology, since, of course, inside the various theological disciplines we come across a plurality of conceptions and, consequently, the concept “pluralist theology” itself is applied today in various ways. Plurality/pluralism Both notions are mostly used in a rather undifferentiated way. Exactly speaking, “plurality” refers to the undeniable fact of diversity and multiplicity in societal life as well as in human language and thought, whereas “pluralism” in its strict sense is concerned with the causes of plurality, and often is used in a rather ideological way. Prajňā Sanskrit: wisdom, knowledge. In connection with enlightenment – in Mahāyāna Buddhism – wisdom is comprehensive knowledge and liberation by which humans find access to and realize the all comprising reality. Even if the concept seems to be concerned with the intellectual capacity of humans, it is not to be overlooked that it fundamentally refers to the spiritual side of human existence. The way to the plenitude of wisdom leads through Shūnyatā, the radical “emptying” or detachment of everything. However, prajňā is not been realized without –> karunā, all comprising compassion with suffering and unenlightened creature. Relationality –> Person Rigveda –> Veda Samsāra Literally Sanskrit: to go round, walk around. In Hinduism and Buddhism it refers to the basic teaching about the cycle or wheel of rebirths. According to the First Noble Truth preached by the historical –> Buddha the experience of the cycle of rebirths is summed up in the notion “suffering.” All humans call for saving from suffering. Accordingly, the central message pronounced in the Third Noble Truth of Buddha’s sermon proclaims the possibility of becoming freed from suffering (–> Nīrvāna). Only in modern times, especially in western countries, there are attempts to interpret reincarnation positively as stages of ascent to the desired goal.

126

Jesus Christ & the Religions

Shūnyatā (Śūnyatā) Substantive to Sanskrit śūnya = empty. In its philosophical and religious meaning it originates from Nāgārjuna, an Indian thinker of the 2nd Century A.D. Contrary to old Indian thought which – similar to occidental thought – ascribes to everything substance, and to humans a personal core, in Buddhist understanding everything exists without substantial permanence, self or ego. The two most common explanatory doctrines refer (1) to anātman = not-self, the missing of any immaterial supporter or subject of acts and experiences – against the affirmation of –> ātman = principle of life, soul, etc., and (2) to Sanskrit pratītyasamutpāda = [the law of ] mutual causality, co-dependent origination or relations, by which everything originates and decays without determinate subject in reciprocal dependence; the law is another way to enunciate the painful cycle of rebirths. In consequence there is only one way of liberation: the realization of universal emptiness of everything, and – in religious terms – overcoming all forms of attachment in a comprising way of emptying-oneself. This leads – in other words – to –> nīrvāna –in positive terms – to radical enlightenment and liberty which, however, cannot be described any further in its content by the use of language. Transcendence Literally it means to pass over, to traverse. The notion is used in philosophy and theology and signifies (1) the act of going beyond the realm of sensual experience and thought, (2) the “beyond” of experience and thought itself. In ordinary human speech transcendence becomes another expression for God who as creator cannot be part of creation. In this sense Christian theology insists on the fact that all created being is related to God, that, however, on behalf of his independence and free will an equal relation cannot be asserted from the side of the creator to creature. And yet, we should not overlook that in all his transcendence the same God is the inner essence and core of all created beings and that creation is not to be considered an isolated act at the beginning, but continues in the course of time. In this sense we speak about the immanence of God; immanence, however, is not to be interpreted in the sense that God’s existence exhausts itself in his presence inside of created beings, and thus at the end creator and creature are identical (pantheism).

• Glossary

127

Truth The problem of truth cannot be solved by simply referring to every day’s popular understanding, where truth is the conformity between what is asserted and what is, or conformity of intellection and being, or of thought/speech and being. There are various questions: (1) concerning human intelligibility and the capacity of knowing and grasping truth (extension of human knowledge, linguistic limitations in expressing truth, etc.); (2) referring to the distinction of things (objects) and persons (other subjects). No human being can be comprehensively known or can be made a mere object of knowledge; moreover, regarding human persons the question of truth becomes also the question of veracity; (3) concerning the variety of notions: for instance, in Holy Scripture we can distinguish between Hebrew ‘emēt = steadfastness, stability, reliability, trustworthiness; Greek alētheia = unhiddenness, “clearing”; and Latin veritas = truth, trustworthiness, which proves that it is meaningful to inquire into the connotations of the terms used for “truth” in other languages and cultures as well. Besides, in New Testament we have to reflect on two instances: (1) In John 14:6 Jesus of Nazareth identifies himself as person with “the Truth”: “I am the way and the truth and the life”; the Jahwe-formula of Ex 3:14 (I am [in Greek] a divine self-assertion) is combined with a personification of truth in the human person of Jesus of Nazareth. (2) Truth is not only a matter of speech, but also of deed (see John 3:21). Moreover, the various points of discussion mentioned indicate that today the middle-aged connection of truth and God calls for the clarification of different preliminary questions. Upanishads –> Veda Veda Sanskrit: knowledge, see Latin videre = to see, German wissen = to know. It refers to the oldest Indian writings which partly go back to the immigrant Aryans, and have been canonically gathered in the first millennium B.C. The earliest part called Rigveda is the oldest poetical work of the family of Indo-Germanic languages, and is the oldest source for Indian pantheon and mythology. The four collections of Vedas have been frequently commented and interpreted. The Upanishads (literally: to sit down near someone, to be near to a master as disciple), also called Vedanta = end of Veda, had a very strong bearing on Indian

128

Jesus Christ & the Religions

history, because the religious conduct changed from predominantly cultic activities to introductions into meditative ways to one’s interior and inner self (yoga). The Upanishads contain also the foundations for the philosophical speculations on the One or Not-Two (Sanskrit advaita) by reflecting on –> ātman and Brahman which determines Hindu life to a high degree even today.. Yin and Yang Both Chinese concepts permeate Chinese cultural and religious history. Originally yin and yang describe the shady (yin) and the sunny (yang) side of a mountain. In this sense they arrange and organize everything between earth and heaven: yin represents the moon, the perfect, the static and inclusive, it is square and tranquil, dark and cold, female and bearing, whereas yang stands for the sun, the start, for causing and dynamic, it is round and movable, bright and hot, male and generating. Both complementary concepts are used in thought and in life practice, in philosophy, religion and medicine.

Selected Readings Note: The selection is limited to English language publications in the fields of theology of religions and interreligious dialogue. See for general informations about the religions: Eliade, Mircea (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Religion. 16 vol. Macmillan: New York, N.Y. 1987ff. Series: World Spirituality. Crossroad: New York (at least 22 vol., with different editors)

General Barnes, Michael, Religions in Conversation: Christian Identity and Religious Pluralism. SPCK: London 1989 ———. Theology and the Dialogue of Religions. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, U.K./New York 2002 Cobb, John Jr. (ed.), Christian Faith and Religious Diversity. Mobilisation for the Human Family. Fortress: Minneapolis 2002 Cornille, Catharine (ed.), Many Mansions? Multiple Religious Belonging and Christian Identity. Orbis: Maryknoll, N.Y. 2002 Dhavamony, Mariasusai, Christian Theology of Religions: a Systematic Reflection on the Understanding of World Religions. P. Lang: Bern 2001 ———. Ecumenical Theology of World Religions. Pontificia Università Gregoriana: Roma 2003 Dupuis, Jacques, Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism. Orbis: Maryknoll, N.Y. 1997 ———. Christianity and the Religions. From Confrontation to Dialogue. Orbis: Maryknoll, N.Y. 2002 Fitzgerald, Michael L. & Borelli, John, Interfaith Dialogue: a Catholic View. Orbis: Maryknoll, N.Y. 2006 Hick, John & Hebblethwaite, Brian (eds.), Christianity and other Religions. Selected Readings. Collins: Glasgow 1980 ———. God has Many Names. Westminster: Philadelphia 1982

130

Jesus Christ & the Religions

——— & Knitter, Paul (eds.), The Myth of Christian Uniqueness: Toward a Pluralistic Theology of Religions. Orbis: Maryknoll, N.Y. 1987 ———. A Christian Theology of Religions: The Rainbow of Faiths. Westminster John Knox: Louisville, KY. 1995 ———. The Metaphor of God Incarnate. SCM: London 2005 Kendall, Daniel & O’Collins, Gerald (eds.), In Many and Diverse Ways. In Honor of Jacques Dupuis. Orbis: Maryknoll, N.Y. 2003 Knitter, Paul, No other Name? Orbis: Maryknoll, N.Y. 1985 ———. Introducing Theologies of Religions. Orbis: Maryknoll, N.Y. 2002 Küng, Hans, Christianity and the World Religions. Paths of Dialogue with Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. Doubleday: Garden City, NY 1986. ———. A Global Ethic. (various editions) after 1993 Neville, Robert Cummings. (ed.), Religious Truth. State University of New York: Albany 2001 Nishitani, Keiji, Religion and Nothingness. Univ. of California: Berkeley 1982 Pieris, Aloysius, Interreligious Dialogue and Theology of Religions. An Asian Paradigm, in id., Fire and Water (see below Buddhism), pp. 154-161 Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue (ed), Interreligious Dialogue. The Official Teaching of the Catholic Church (1963-1995) Ed. Francesco Gioia. Pauline Books & Media: Boston 1997 Pope, Stephen J. & Hefling, Charles (eds.), Sic et Non. Encountering Dominus Iesus. Orbis: Maryknoll, N.Y. 2002 Race, Alan & Shafer, Ingrid (eds.), Religions in Dialogue: From Theocracy to Democracy. Ashgate: Aldershot, Hants 2002 Rahner, Karl, Christianity and the Non-Christian Religions: Theological Investigations vol.5. Helicon: Baltimore 1966, pp.115-134 ———. On the Importance of Non-Christian Religions for Salvation: Theological Investigations. vol. 18, Crossroad: New York 1983, pp. 288-295 Ratzinger, Joseph, Truth and Tolerance. Christian Belief and World Religions. Ignatius: San Francisco 2004 Sherwin, Byron L. & Kasimov, Harold (eds.), John Paul II and Interreligious Dialogue. Orbis: Maryknoll, N.Y. 1999 Smith, Wilfred Cantwell, Towards a World Theology. Faith and the Comparative History of Religion. Westminster: Philadelphia, Pa, 1981

• Selected Readings

131

Jesus Christ and Other Religions Amaladoss, Michael, The Asian Jesus. Orbis: Maryknoll, N.Y. 2006 Cavadini, John & Holt, Laura (eds.), What do you say that I am? Confessing the Mystery of Christ. Notre Dame Press: Notre Dame, Ind. 2004 Cragg, Kenneth, Jesus and the Muslim. G. Allen & Unwin: Boston 1985 ———. The Christ and the Faiths. Westminster Press: Philadelphia 1986 Dhavamony, Mariasusai, Jesus Christ in the Understanding of World Religions. Pontificia Università Gregoriana: Roma 2004 Dupuis, Jacques, Jesus Christ at the Encounter of World Religions. Orbis: Maryknoll, N.Y. 1991 Haight, Roger, The Future of Christology. Continuum: New York 2005 Imbach, Josef, Three Faces of Christ: How Jews, Christians and Muslims see Him. Templegate: Springfield, Ill. 1992 Lawrence, Chellaian, Jesus as Prophet in Christianity and Islam. A Model for Interfaith Dialogue. ISPCK: Delhi 1999 Merrigan, T. & Haers, J. (eds.), The Myriad Christ: Plurality and the Quest for Unity in Contemporary Christology. University Press: Leuven 2000 Parrinder, Geoffrey E., Jesus in the Qur’an. Sheldon: London 1976 Phipps, William, Muhammand and Jesus: A Comparision of the Prophets and their Teachings. Continuum: New York 1999 Pieris, Aloysius, Christ Beyond Dogma: Doing Christology in the Context of the Religions and the Poor: in Louvain Studies 25 (2000), pp. 187-231 Robinson, Neal, Christ in Islam and Christianity. State University of New York Press: Albany, N.Y. 1991 Samartha, Stanley J., One Christ, Many Religions. Toward a Revised Christology. Orbis: Maryknoll, N.Y. 1991 Seretti, Massimo (ed.), The Uniqueness and Universality of Jesus Christ. In Dialogue with the Religions. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge U.K. 2004 Soares-Prabhu, George M., The Dharma of Jesus. Ed. by Francis D’Sa. Orbis: Maryknoll, N.Y. 2003 Swidler, Leonhard & Mojzes, Paul (eds.), The Uniqueness of Jesus: a Dialogue with Paul F. Knitter. Orbis: Maryknoll, N.Y.1997 Waldenfels, Hans, “Christ beyond Dogma”? Some Remarks on Aloysius Pieris’ Renewal of Christology, in R. Crusz/M. Fernando/A. Tilakaratne (eds.),

132

Jesus Christ & the Religions

Encounters with the Word. Essays to honour Aloysius Pieris SJ on his 70th Birthday (9th April 2004). Ecumenical Institute for Study and Dialogue: Colombo, Sri Lanka – Missionswissenschaftliches Institt Missio: Aachen – Missionsprokur der Jesuiten: Nürnberg 2004, pp.209-222

Abrahamic Religions Al-Faruqi, Isma’il Raji (ed.), Trialogue of the Abrahamic Faiths. International Institute of Islamic Thought: Herndon, VA 1986 Hinze, Bradford E. & Omar, Irfan A., Heirs of Abraham: the Future of Muslim, Jewish, and Christian Relations. Orbis: Maryknoll, N.Y. 2005 LaCocque, Andre (ed.), Commitment and Commemoration: Jesw, Christians, Muslims in Dialogue. Exploration: Chicago 1994 Menocal, Maria Rosa, The Ornament of the World: How Muslims, Jews, and Christians Created a Culture of Tolerance in Medieval Spain. Little, Brown and Co.: Boston 2002 Meyerson, Mark & English, Edward D. (eds.), Christians, Muslims, and Jews in Medieval and Early Modern Spain. Notre Dame Press: Notre Dame, Ind. 2000 Peters, Francis E., Judaism, Christianity, and Islam: the Classical Texts and their Interpretation. Princeton University Press: Princeton, N.J. 1990 ———. The Monotheists: Jews, Christians, and Muslims in Conflict and Competition. Princeton University Press: Princeton, N.J. 2003 ———. The Children of Abraham: Judaism, Christianity, Islam. Princeton University Press: Princeton 2004 Race, Alan & Shafer, Ingrid, Religions in Dialogue. Ashgate: Aldershot, Hampshire U.K. 2002 Sloyan, Gerard S. (ed.), Religions of the Book. University Press of America: Lanham, Md. 1996 Swidler, Leonhard (ed.), Theoria > Praxis: How Jews, Christians, and Muslims can together move from theory to practice. Peeters: Leuven 1998

Islam and Christianity Ansari, Zafar Ishaq & Esposito, John (eds.), Muslims and the West. Encounters and Dialogue. Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. Georgetown Univ.: Washington, DC 2001 Armour, Rollin, Islam, Christianity and the West. A Troubled History. Orbis: Maryknoll, N.Y. 2002

• Selected Readings

133

Gaudeul, Jean-Marie, Encounters and Clashes: Islam and Christianity in History. Pontificio Istituto di Studi Arabi e d’Islamistica: Roma 2000 Haddad, Yvonne Yazbeck/Haddad, Wadi Zaidan (eds.), Christian-Muslim Encounters. University Press of Florida: Gainesville 1995 Küng, Hans & Moltmann, Jürgen, Islam, a Challenge for Christianity. Orbis: Maryknoll, N.Y. 1994 Merad, Ali, Christrian Hermit in an Islamic World: A Muslim’s View of Charles de Foucauld. Paulist: New York 1999 Mohammad, Ovey, Muslim-Christian Relations. Orbis: Maryknoll, N.Y. 1999 Moucarry, Chawkat, The Prophet and the Messiah: An Arab Christian’s Perspective on Islam and Christianity. InterVarsity: Westmont, Ill. 1987 Omar, Irfan A. (ed.), Islam and Other Religions: Pathways to Dialogue. Essays in Honor of Mahmoud Mustafa Ahoub. Routledge: London/New York 2006. ———. (ed.) A Muslim View of Christianity. Essays on Dialogue by Mahmoud Ayoub. Orbis: Maryknoll, N.Y. 2007 Peters, Francis E., Islam, a Guide for Jews and Christians. Princeton University Press: Princeton, N.J. 2003 Sperber, Jutta, Christians and Muslims: the Dialogue Activities of the World Council of Churches and their Theological Foundation. W. de Gruyter: Berlin/New York 2000 Waardenburg, Jacques, Muslim-Christian Perceptions of Dialogue Today: Experiences and Expectations. Peeters: Leuven 2000 Watt, W. Montgomery, Muslim-Christian Encounters: Perspectives and Misperceptions. Routledge: London – New York 1991 Warraq, Ibn, Why I am not a Muslim. Prometheus: Amherst, N.Y. 1995 Zebiri, Kate, Muslims and Christians Face to Face. Oneworld: Oxford 1997

Judaism and Christianity Boys, Mary C., Has God only one Blessing? Judaism as a Source of Christian Self-Understanding. Paulist: New York 2000 ———. (ed.) Seeing Judaism anew. Rowman & Littlefied: Lanham, Md. 2005 ———. Lee, Sarah S. Christians and Jews in Dialogue: Learning in the Presence of the Others. SkyLight Paths: Woodstock, Vt. 2006

134

Jesus Christ & the Religions

Korn, Eugene B. & Pawlikowski, John T. (eds.), Two Faith, one Covenant? Jewish and Christian Identity in the Presence of the Other. Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham, Md, 2005 Pollefeyt, Didier (ed.), Jews and Christians, Rivals or Partners for the Kingdom of God? In Search of an Alternative for the Theology of Substitution. Peters: Louvain 1997 Ratzinger, Joseph, Many Religions – One Covenant. Israel, the Church and the World. Ignatius: San Francisco 1999

Asia Amaladoss, Michael, Making all Things New: Dialogue, Pluralism, and Evangelization in Asia. Orbis: Maryknoll, N.Y. 1990 Phan, Peter C., The Asian Synod. Text and Commentaries. Orbis: Maryknoll, N.Y. 2002 ———. Christianity with an Asian Face. Asian American Theology in the Making. Orbis: Maryknoll, N.Y. 2003 ———. Being Religious Interreligiously. Asian Perspectives on Interreligious Dialogue. Orbis: Maryknoll, N.Y. 2004 Pieris, Aloysius, An Asian Theology of Liberation. Orbis: Maryknoll, N.Y. 1988

Hinduism and Christianity Abhishiktananda, Swami (Dom Henri Le Saux), Saccidananda: a Christian Approach to Advaita Experience. ISPCK: Delhi 1974 ———. Hindu-Christian Meeting Point. Within the Cave of the Heart. ISPCK: Delhi 1976 ———. Ascent to the Depth of the Heart. The Spiritual Diary (1945-1973). ISPCK: Delhi 1998 Clooney, Francis X., Hindu God, Christian God. Oxford Univ. 2001 Dhavamony, Mariasusai, Hindu-Christian Dialogue:Theological Soundings and Perspectives. Rodopi: Amsterdam/New York 2002 Griffiths, Bede, The Marriage of East and West: a Sequel to the Golden String. Templegate: Springsfield, Ill. 1982 ———. A New Vision of Reality: Western Science, Eastern Mysticism and Christian Faith. Collins: London 1989 ———. Essential Writings. Orbis: Maryknoll, N.Y. 2004

• Selected Readings

135

Halbfass, Wilhelm, India and Europe. State University of New York: Albany, N.Y. 1988 ———. Tradition and Reflection: Explorations in Indian Thought. State University of New York: Albany, N.Y. 1991 Panikkar, Raimundo, The Cosmotheandric Experience. Emerging Religious Consciousness. Orbis: Maryknoll, N.Y. 1993 ———. The Intrareligious Dialogue. Paulist: New York 1999 ———. Christophany. The Fullness of Man. Orbis: Maryknoll, N.Y. 2004

Buddhism and Christianity Abe, Masao, Zen and Western Thought. University of Hawaii: Honolulu 1985 ———. Buddhism and Interfaith Dialogue. Part one of a two-Volume Sequel to Zen and Western Thought. Macmillan: Houndmills, Basinstoke, Hampshire 1995 ———. Zen and Comparative Studies. Part two of a Two-Volume Sequel to Zen and Western Thought. University of Hawaii: Honolulu 1997 ———. Zen and the Modern World. A third Sequel to Zen and Western Thought. University of Hawaii: Honolulu 2003 Cobb, John B. Jr., Beyond Dialogue. Toward a Mutual Transformation of Christianity and Buddhism. Fortress: Philadelphia 1982 ——— & Ives, Christopher (eds.), The Emptying God. A Buddhist-JewishChristian Conversation. Orbis: Maryknoll, N.Y. 1990 Corless, Roger/Knitter, Paul (ed.), Buddhist Emptiness and Christian Trinity. Paulist: N.Y. 1990 D’Silva, Lynn, The Problem of Self in Buddhism and Christianity. Macmillan: London 1979 Dumoulin, Heinrich, Zen Buddhism. A History. Macmillan: New York/London. Vol.I: 1988; Vol. II: 1990 ———. Buddhism in the 20th Century. Ed. by John C. Maraldo. Weatherhill: New York 1992 Ives, Christopher (ed.), Divine Emptiness and Historical Fullness. Trinity: Valley Forge, Pa. 1995 Ingram, Paul O./Streng, Frederick J. (eds.), Buddhist-Christian Dialogue: Mutual Renewal and Transformation. University of Hawaii: Honolulu 1986 Pieris, Aloysius, Love Meets Wisdom. A Christian Experience of Buddhism. Orbis: Maryknoll, N.Y. 1988

136

Jesus Christ & the Religions

———. Fire and Water. Basic Issues in Buddhism and Christianity. Orbis: Maryknoll, N.Y. 1996 Streng, Frederick J., Emptiness A Study of Religious Meaning. Abingdon: Nashville 1967 Suzuki, D.T., Mysticism: Christian and Buddhist. Greenwood: Westport. Conn. 1975 Takeuchi Yoshinori, The Heart of Buddhism. Crossroad: New York 1983 ———. Buddhist Spirituality (= Series World Spirituality). Vol. 8: Crossroad: New York 1995; vol. 9: 1999 Waldenfels, Hans, Absolute Nothingness. Foundations for a Buddhist-Christian Dialogue. Paulist: New York 1980 ———. Buddhist Challenge to Christianity. Chavara Institute for Indian and Inter-religious Studies: Rome/Dharmaram: Bangalore 2004 Williams, Paul, The Unexpected Way. On Converting from Buddhism to Catholicism. T. & T. Clark International: London – New York 2002 Yagi, Seiichi & Swidler, Leonhard, A Bridge to Buddhist-Christian Dialogue. Paulist: New York 1990

index A Abraham, 36, 100, 105, 132 Ad gentes, 51, 63, 97 advaita, 118, 128, 134 advent, 73 see future Africa, 18, 99 agnosticism, 28 Allah, 36, 80, 100, 117 anonymous Christian, 56, 62, 93 anthropocentrism, 68, 92 non-anthropocentrism anthropodicy, 68 Asia, 19, 22, 36, 58, 67-69, 84, 88, 99, 121, 134 Assisi, 100 atheism, 28, 38, 80 Atīśa, 113 ātman, 111-112, 118, 126, 128 self, 41, 83, 97, 111-112, 121-122, 126, 128, 135 anātman, 118, 126 non-self, 115 Augustine, 28 avatāra, 20, 118 Ayoub, M., 133

106, 108, 110, 116, 120, 122-123, 126-127, 134 and not-being, 110 beginning and end, 89 Benedict XVI, 54, 57 See Ratzinger, J. 15, 54, 119, 130, 134 beyond, 13, 16, 18, 31, 33, 38-39, 41-42, 49, 61, 63, 66, 71, 77, 81, 86, 89, 95, 99, 105, 110, 126, 131, 135 Biser, E., 21 bodhisattva, 118, 121 Boëthius, 35 Bonaventure, 123 Bonhoeffer, D., 31 Brahman, 118, 128 Buber, M., 88 Buddha, 19-20, 66, 82-83, 106, 112, 118-119, 121, 125 Amida, 121 Buddhism, 19, 31, 42, 57, 71, 75, 82, 86, 94, 112-113, 118, 121-123, 125, 130, 135-136 Hīnayāna, 121 Mahāyāna, 71, 118, 121, 123, 125 Tibetan, 113, 121 Zen, 42, 69, 71, 94-95, 121, 135

B Barth, 31 being, 13, 16-17, 19-20, 22, 24-25, 27, 29, 31, 34-36, 38-39, 46-51, 54, 56, 58, 66, 68, 70, 72-73, 75, 77, 79-80, 85-86, 88-89, 91-92,

C causality, 120, 126 Chalcedon, 5, 10, 12, 43, 45-46, 50, 52-53, 55, 120

138

Jesus Christ & the Religions

change, 10-11, 29, 34, 46-47, 51, 57, 75, 91-92, 115 Charles de Foucauld, 30, 133 China, 36, 67, 88, 121 Christianity, 5, 10-13, 15-19, 21-24, 28, 31-32, 42, 45, 55-56, 58, 62-63, 65-66, 68, 71-72, 74-75, 88, 92, 97-98, 103-104, 106, 122, 124, 129-136 christocentrism, 57 Christology, 5, 46-47, 53, 63-64, 72, 120-123, 131 christopractise, 72 kenotic, 53-54, 120-121, 123 negative, 5, 46-49, 52, 61, 68, 72, 87, 107, 122-123 Pneuma–, 34 Son–, 20, 23, 26, 34-35, 46, 4849, 52-55, 57, 63-64, 78-79, 109, 120 Trinitarian, 63-64, 89, 106 Word–, 12, 16, 19-20, 25, 27, 34, 39, 46-49, 54, 65-66, 71-72, 7879, 81, 87, 90, 99, 101-102, 106, 108, 120, 123, 131-132-136 Logos–, 34, 78, 119 Church, 10, 12, 15-16, 20, 23, 28, 37, 40-42, 45-46, 49-50, 52, 54-62, 72, 74, 77, 79, 93, 95, 97, 103-105, 108, 119, 122, 124, 130, 134-136 and society, 25, 65, 75, 99 authority, 26, 29, 37, 58, 95-136 magisterium, 5, 57-59, 69, 95, 108 organisation system people of God, 58-59, 95 Church Fathers, 52, 74, 108

communication, 24, 50, 85, 124 compassion, 71, 118, 120-121, 125; sympathy, 120 Confucianism, 19, 31 Confucius, 19-20 conversio, 91 conversion, 6, 27, 91 creation, 38, 67, 80, 95, 107, 122, 126 creature, 38, 125-126 cross, 5, 19, 21-22, 24-25, 30, 49, 59, 86, 101, 109, 123 D Dalai Lama, 92 Daniélou, J., 108 Daoism, 19, 31, 115 death, 12, 16, 19, 21, 39, 41, 47, 51, 59, 61, 66-68, 71, 73, 75, 95, 101, 103, 106, 110-112, 114, 121 Debrèl, M., 30 Dei verbum, 97 Descartes, R., 36, 88 Deus semper maior, 49 Deus semper minor, 49, 79 dialogue, 6-7, 10-13, 26, 32, 35, 55, 57-60, 81, 84-85, 87-90, 93-95, 98-99, 103-104, 121, 124, 129136 interreligious dialogue, 13, 55, 5758, 90, 94, 98-99, 124, 129-130, 134 Dionysius Areopagita discernment of spirits, 37, 119 discretio spirituum, 37, 119

• Index

Dominus Iesus, 5, 10, 15, 45, 47-48, 97, 119, 130 doxology, 119 Dupuis, J., 10-11, 15, 33, 48, 52, 6263, 77, 97, 108, 119, 129-131 E ecclesiocentrism, 57 Eckhart, Master, 123 egocentrism, 36 Ellacuría, I., 71 emptiness, 30, 36, 40-42, 53, 96, 115, 121, 126, 135-136; void, 110 enlightenment, 28, 71, 82, 106, 118119, 123, 125-126; awakening, 113-114 Europe, 9, 15, 28, 31, 135 evil, 67-68; wickedness, 67 exclusiveness, 56 experience, 9, 13, 37, 59, 68-71, 83, 85, 90, 98, 125-126, 134-136 Extra Christum nulla salus, 56, 62, 93 Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, 56, 62, 93, 124 F faith, 6, 10-11, 13, 15-16, 22-23, 33-34, 37, 48, 50-51, 53-55, 5961, 63-64, 71, 83, 90, 94-95, 97, 105, 107-108, 114, 119, 129-130, 134; belief, 11, 33, 35, 57, 59-60, 70, 89-90, 95, 113, 120, 124, 130; implicit faith, 50-51 Feuerbach, L., 38-39 finitude, 39, 66, 80, 86; limitations, 13, 36, 39, 47, 51-52, 63, 86, 92, 99, 127

139 infinite, 13, 39-40, 42, 71, 73, 8081, 86, 92, 100 Flavian of Constantinople, 52 following Christ, 5, 24, 59, 72, 95 founder, 12, 16, 18-19, 32, 37, 107, 118-136 Four Noble Truths, 112 freedom, 30, 76, 80, 98-100, 102 religious freedom, 99 Freud, S., 39 fulfillment, 12-13, 39, 70-73, 79, 95, 98, 106, 118, 121 future, 32-33, 41, 61, 69-70, 72-73, 75, 105, 113, 122, 131-132 G Gäde, G., 78 Gandhi, M., 92 Gaudium et spes, 104 globalization, 12, 65 God, 6, 12-13, 17, 19-23, 26-27, 29-31, 34-39, 42, 45-49, 51-55, 57-69, 72-75, 78-87, 89-90, 92, 95, 97-101, 103, 105-109, 111, 116, 118-124, 126-127, 129-130, 133-135-136 God and gods, 36 cipher, 29 concept, 12, 20, 27-31, 33-36, 47, 51, 81, 83, 88-89, 92-93, 103, 118, 120, 122-125 image, 19, 21-22, 36, 39, 61, 86, 100, 108 creator, 29, 38, 47, 53, 57, 87, 107-108, 126

140

Jesus Christ & the Religions

divine, 19, 29, 31, 34, 36, 48, 50, 53, 78, 81, 92, 99, 120, 122, 127, 135 Father, 23, 26, 34-35, 46, 48-49, 53-54, 63-64, 74, 101, 106, 120136 fiction, 39 projection, 39 God-experience, 29 God-relation, 5, 26, 37 God-stories incomprehensible, 13, 45, 49, 52, 100 merciful, 53, 61, 80 names, 38, 67, 82, 93-94, 129 personal God, 29, 81, 92 suffering God, 53 Trinity, 124, 135; triune, 36, 48, 81, 106 true God, 29, 36 ultimate reality, 57; the “Real”, 23, 81-82, 92, 111-112 Word, 12, 16, 19-20, 25, 27, 34, 39, 46-49, 54, 65-66, 71-72, 78-79, 81, 87, 90, 99, 101-102, 106, 108, 120, 123, 131-132-136 see Allah, 36, 80, 100, 117 see Jahwe, 36, 116-136 see atheism, 28, 38, 80 see monotheism, 29, 36, 68 grace, 42, 61, 63, 78-79, 90, 99, 107 Greshake, G. guidance, 25, 70, 80, 119 guilt, 13, 21, 91, 103, 106; sin, 1921, 46, 51, 53, 67

H Haas, A.M., 73 Habermas, J., 29 Haigth, R. Hakuin, 69, 71, 94 happiness, 60, 66, 76-77, 79, 102 harmony, 39, 76 healing, 13, 20-21, 39, 76-77, 101 heaven, 73, 111, 116, 128 hell, 13, 73 Hick, J., 80, 82, 92, 124, 129 Hildegard of Bingen,, 40-41, 122 Hinduism, 31, 109-110, 118, 122123, 125, 130, 134 history, 5, 10, 12-13, 15-16, 20, 23-29, 31, 33, 35-37, 41, 43, 45, 47, 51, 56, 61-62, 64-67, 71-73, 75-78, 80-83, 85, 90-92, 95, 97, 105-106, 109, 120-121, 124, 127128, 130, 132-133, 135 history and stories, 80 world history, 5, 12-13, 16, 25, 56, 64-66, 80, 97, 106 Hoff, G.M., 46 Holy Scripture, 26-27, 34, 52-53, 104, 122, 127 Bible, 16, 22, 80, 83, 85, 104 Holy Spirit, 34-36, 62-64, 78, 85, 108, 119-120 hope, 13, 39, 59-60, 70-71, 73, 76, 78, 101 hypostasis, 51, 119-120, 123 I identity, 22, 94, 129, 134 Ignatius of Loyola, 30, 37, 119

• Index

immanence, 29, 45, 120, 126 Incarnation, 20, 48-49, 52-54, 67, 72, 80, 92, 95, 101, 103, 118 inclusiveness, 56, 93-136 mutual inclusiveness, 56, 93 incommunicability, 35 India, 9, 18, 20, 36, 67, 75, 90, 135 individuality, 35-36, 89, 92, 120, 124 inspiration, 22, 34, 107 inter-, 50 interpersonality intersubjectivity, 24 invitation, 13, 23-24, 33, 37, 53, 72, 75, 77, 97-98, 101, 105-106 Isaac, 36, 100, 105 Islam, 9, 19-20, 23, 31, 36, 80, 92, 107, 117, 130-133 I–you I–we, 88 J Jacob, 36, 100, 105 Jahwe, 36, 116-136 Japan, 18, 25, 121 Jaspers, 16, 19 Jesus of Nazareth, 11-12, 16-18, 26, 45, 47-48, 51, 54, 67, 75, 79, 95, 100-101, 121-122, 127 classified, 5, 19-23 founder, 12, 16, 18-19, 32, 37, 107, 118-136 healer, 20 life, death and resurrection, 95, 103 universal mediator, 5, 53

141

messiah, 12, 20, 133 preexistence, 47 prophet, 20, 106, 131, 133 servant, 52-53 Son, 20, 23, 26, 34-35, 46, 48-49, 52-55, 57, 63-64, 78-79, 109, 120 Son of God, 20, 52, 54-55, 57, 109 teacher, 19-20, 23 “truly God and truly man”, 12, 46, 52, 63, 72 uniqueness, 15, 18-22, 32, 51, 58, 63, 79, 92, 101, 105, 107, 130-131 Word, 12, 16, 19-20, 25, 27, 34, 39, 46-49, 54, 65-66, 71-72, 7879, 81, 87, 90, 99, 101-102, 106, 108, 120, 123, 131-132-136 Jews and Christians, 55, 100, 104105, 132-134 Jews, Christians, Moslems John of the Cross, 30, 123 John Paul II, 23, 37, 92, 99-100, 130 John the Baptist, 19 John XXIII, 23, 92 Judaism, 19, 22-23, 31-32, 71, 88, 100, 104-105, 132-133-136 Jewish Christian judgment, 10, 30, 33, 46, 61, 73, 76, 97, 117, 119 final, 15, 39, 57, 61, 64, 73, 76, 95, 99, 106, 118, 124 justice, 11, 27, 43, 61, 75, 89, 104 K Kakuan, 41, 95 karma, 120

142

Jesus Christ & the Religions

karunā, 120, 125 Kasper, W., 35, 46, 54 kenōsis, 53, 121; kenotic, 53-54, 120121, 123 Kessler, H., 52 King, Martin Luther, Jr. Kingdom of God, 73-75, 95, 99, 134 Kitamori, K., 53 Knitter, P., 124, 129-131, 135 knowledge, 9, 31, 45, 48, 56, 65, 76, 79-80, 83, 85, 103-105, 113, 115, 125, 127; understanding, 5, 11-12, 21-22, 27-28, 32, 34-36, 53, 59, 61-63, 67, 72, 74-75, 77, 79, 85, 88-89, 93-95, 98, 100, 104, 108, 113, 118-121, 123-124, 126-127, 129, 131-132 Kolakowski, L., 70-71 Koyama, K., 5, 21, 101 Kuan-yin, 71, 118, 121

life, eternal, 49, 78, 107; immortality, 110-111 love, 50, 54, 59, 76, 80, 102, 112, 114, 116, 136 Lubac, H. de, 108 Luhmann, N., 38 Lumen gentium, 51, 58, 62-63, 97 Luther, M., 23, 39, 92

L language, 6-7, 42, 57, 61, 63-65, 69, 74, 77, 85-88, 90, 120, 125-126, 129; speech, 42, 52, 64, 73, 77, 79, 81, 85-87, 113-114, 119, 123, 126-127; words and deeds, 13 Laotse, 115 Lapide, P., 22-23 Latin America, 68 Leo I, 52 Levinas, E., 88 lex orandi, 5, 60 lex credendi, 5, 60 liberation, 11, 13, 30-31, 39, 55, 69, 76, 78-79, 82, 91, 98, 102-103, 120, 123, 125-126, 134

M magisterium, 5, 57-59, 69, 95, 108 malum physicum, 68 mandala, 40-41, 121-122 martyr Mary, 46, 48, 121-122, 133; Mother of Jesus, 121 Marx, K., 39 metanoia, 91 Moltmann, J., 73, 133 monophysitism, 47, 122 monotheism, 29, 36, 68 morality Moses, 19 Mother Teresa, 23, 92 Muhammad, 19-20, 106 mutuality mutual inclusiveness, 56, 93 mystery, 13, 35, 46, 100-101, 116, 131 mysticism, 29-30, 72, 123, 134, 136 N Nāgārjuna, 126-136 name, 7, 65, 82-83, 93-94, 116-118, 130

• Index

narrative, 52, 66, 122 nature in theology, 122 New Testament, 22, 46, 49, 52, 73, 80, 107, 127 Nietzsche, F., 39, 68 nihilism; nihilistic, 123 Nikolaus of Kues, 123 nirvāna, 75, 123 Nishitani, K., 36, 94, 130 Nostra aetate, 31, 42, 108 nothing, 28-30, 41-42, 54, 70, 78, 81-82, 87, 111, 116, 123; nothingness, 36, 121, 130, 136 O object, 16, 24, 31, 33, 37-38, 127; objective, 91, 109 openness, 13, 40, 49, 56, 79 otherness, 11, 25, 77 Oxen Path, 42 P pantheism, 28-29, 126 passive / active peace, 11, 17, 39, 60, 75-77, 83, 89, 100-102, 104 person, 10, 12, 16, 18, 22-23, 29-30, 32-36, 42, 45-46, 49, 51-53, 55, 61, 66, 68-70, 72-75, 81-83, 85, 88-90, 92, 94, 97-98, 103, 120, 122-125, 127 person in God, 35 philosophy, 30-31, 35, 51, 68, 122123, 126, 128 Pieris, A., 5, 22, 31, 57-58, 69, 83, 93, 101, 130-132, 134-136

143 pluralism, 7, 10-11, 13, 15, 18, 3233, 55-56, 86, 98, 119, 125, 129, 134 polycentrism polytheism, 36 poor, 9, 11, 22, 24, 53, 57-59, 64, 69, 75, 95, 101, 131 prajňā, 120, 125 prasad, 90 pratītyasamutpāda, 126 prayer, 45, 50, 60-61, 90, 99-100, 119 profession of faith, 15, 108 see witness, 28, 71, 90, 97; confessor, 90 promise, 39-41, 55, 66, 72-73, 75, 77-78, 101, 107 prophet, 20, 106, 131, 133 prosopon, 123 Q Qur’an; Koran, 34. 94, 117, 131 R Rahner, K., 5, 45, 55-56, 62, 93, 124, 130-136 Ratzinger, J. 15, 54, 119, 130, 134 Benedict XVI, 54, 57 reality, 17, 20, 28, 31, 39, 42, 48-49, 51, 56-57, 63-64, 66, 71, 80, 90, 97, 118, 125, 134 interpretation, 51, 54, 63, 122, 132-136; history, 5, 10, 12-13, 1516, 20, 23-29, 31, 33, 35-37, 41, 43, 45, 47, 51, 56, 61-62, 64-67, 71-73, 75-78, 80-83, 85, 90-92,

144

Jesus Christ & the Religions

95, 97, 105-106, 109, 120-121, 124, 127-128, 130, 132-133, 135 reconciliation, 13, 21, 39, 91, 102; forgiveness, 20-21, 103 redemption, 13, 39, 55, 67, 75-76, 99, 103 reincarnation, 67, 73, 120, 125 rebirth, 114 relation, 29-31, 34-35, 47-48, 54, 73, 93-94, 103, 106, 120, 126 relationality, 35, 89, 124-125-136 relativism, 57 religio, 27-28, 38 religion, 5, 7, 9-12, 15-18, 20-24, 26-34, 36-39, 42, 56, 58, 65-66, 71, 82, 84, 86, 91, 98-99, 101, 103-104, 108, 124, 128-130-136 religion and religions, 27, 91 religion and religiosity, 37 concept of religion, 12, 28, 31, 33, 103 organization, 16, 28, 30, 33-34, 104 therapeutic religion, 21 true religion, 28, 98, 108 response, 23, 61, 87, 99, 105 responsibility, 68, 87, 104 resurrection, 16, 41, 59, 85, 95, 100, 103 revelation, 78, 82, 99 self-communication, 42, 64, 78-79, 82, 95, 99 Romero, O., 23, 71 Rosenzweig, F., 88 Ruster, Th., 29, 31

S sacrament salvation, 5-6, 11-12, 15, 19-22, 31, 33, 39, 46, 48, 52-57, 59-60, 62-63, 66-67, 76-79, 93, 95, 9798, 101-103, 105-106, 108, 124, 130-136 samsāra, 75, 125 Schillebeeckx, E., 65 search, 5, 12, 17, 29-30, 42, 59, 66, 68-73, 91, 99, 134 secularism, 28 secularization, 28, 37 self, 41, 83, 97, 111-112, 121-122, 126, 128, 135 Shintō, 18, 31 shūnyatā, 121, 123, 125-126 silence, 81, 88, 90, 100 sin, 19-21, 46, 51, 53, 67; guilt, 13, 21, 91, 103, 106 Smith, W.C., 124, 130 Sobrino, J., 10-11, 22, 24, 49-50, 57-59, 74 Socrates, 19-20 soteriocentrism, 57 spirare, 34-35 spirit, 34-36, 47-48, 62-64, 70, 78, 85, 90, 101, 108, 118-120; spirits, 36-37, 119 discretio spirituum, 37, 119 Holy Spirit, 34-36, 62-64, 78, 85, 108, 119-120 Spiritual Exercises, 30, 37, 119 spirituality, 5, 27, 33-34, 37, 60, 75, 90, 120, 129, 136 Stein, Edith, 23

• Index

145

subject, 7, 24, 32, 38, 55, 88-89, 104, 118-121, 123-124, 126-127, 129, 126; subjective, 33, 50, 109 131-132; self-understanding, 11, 30, 32, 51, 56, 62, 68, 82, 97, 133 substance, 35, 123-124, 126 suffering, 5, 13, 22, 24, 53, 66-70, 72, 77, 82, 103, 112-114, 125 V Suzuki, D.T., 96, 136 Vatican I, 58 Vatican II, 31, 42, 58, 82, 108 T Veda, 110, 118, 120, 125, 127 Rigveda, 110, 125, 127 Tao-te-Ching Upanishads, 111, 118, 127-128 Teresa of Avila, 30-136 victims, 11, 59, 68 theocentrism, 57, 92 Vishnu, 20, 118 theodicy, 67-68 theology and spirituality, 60 narrative theology, 122 W negative theology, 48-49, 52, 122- way, 5, 10-13, 16-26, 28, 30-31, 33123 35, 38, 41-42, 45-47, 50, 54-56, 59, 61-62, 64, 66-67, 69-73, 76, theology of religion, 7, 11, 124 79-83, 85, 88, 90-96, 98, 100-101, pluralist theology, 124-125 104-108, 115-116, 118-123, 125Thomas Aquinas, 27, 123 127, 136; path, 12, 18, 25, 36, 42, 113, 117; aim, 25, 29, 71, 81, 103 tolerance, 9, 17, 33, 130, 132 way of salvation, 108; religion, 5, 7, transcendence, 13, 29, 38, 45, 120, 9-12, 15-18, 20-24, 26-34, 36-39, 126 42, 56, 58, 65-66, 71, 82, 84, 86, translation, 53-54, 86, 118, 120 91, 98-99, 101, 103-104, 108, Trinity, see God 124, 128-130-136 tritheism, 124 Weil, S., 30 truth, 17, 22, 42-43, 45, 57, 62-64, wisdom, 19, 22, 71, 107, 113, 115, 75-76, 78-79, 83, 104-105, 108, 120, 125, 136 112-113, 124-127, 130 witness, 28, 71, 90, 97; confessor, 90 truth and God, 127 Tsujimura, K., 96 Y U understanding, 5, 11-12, 21-22, 27-28, 32, 34-36, 53, 59, 61-63, 67, 72, 74-75, 77, 79, 85, 88-89, 93-95, 98, 100, 104, 108, 113,

yin and yang, 76, 128